Shared publicly  - 
 
Tolkien fans, are you looking forward to seeing The Hobbit? Take a look at our full review before you pay out for that expensive ticket.
62
17
Michael Tucker's profile photoSaed Matos's profile photoAngel Boullon Galan's profile photoErnest Thomas's profile photo
25 comments
 
That was always the danger - LOTR is over 1000 pages and could therefore be stretched over 9 hours or so without inventing too much. The Hobbit is much shorter and, whilst much is alluded to in the books, this leaves scope for a little too much "creativity" for my liking. The danger is that, for all its promise, this prequel trilogy will fall into the same traps as the one George Lucas made. Fortunately, it can't possibly be THAT bad.
 
Couldn't careless what a reviewer has to say this film is going to be awesome!
 
Slate suggested that the movie at the high frame rate looks like a 1980s home movie, almost TOO lifelike.  Honestly, I think I'm going to see it at 24 in 3D -- should be good enough.
 
2D for me - I don't know why moviemakers persist with 3D
 
No, not at all. Peter jackson really ruined it. 
 
I'll go watch it (in 2D of course), but if it really is as long and slow as claimed here I won't go for the 2nd and 3rd installments...
 
3D is popular for the film makers as they charge more!
 
I'm definitely in for the HFR showing this coming weekend!! 
 
I work at cinemark, and I'm dreading friday.

As a tolkien fan, having read every book related to middle-earth, I'm honestly not excited for The Hobbit. I didn't enjoy the book as much as I enjoyed The lord of the rings, so the novelty of seeing it on film won't be there.
 
+Andrew Harpin I'd be interested to see whether total takings for a film presented in equal share 2D and 3D, even with 3D priced higher. I reckon the 2D's takings would be higher. What this is about is forcing people out of their living rooms and into cinemas because the 2D experience can be adequately replicated with a decent TV and a bluray player. The same cannot be said of 3D (at least, at the consumer level)  - the only place to get a decent 3D experience is in an overpriced cinema seat. Personally, I always go 2D - and I don't feel like I'm missing out. Neither am I a cinematic purist, not at all. I just prefer the 2D experience.
 
my problem with 3D is that, even though they now use polarized light that should be allowed through into one of your eyes, I still see color distortions (I know, I know, that's impossible, everybody keeps telling me) and rarely see a decent 3D effect. When I DO see the effect, it doesn't have much added value to me...
 
This is so clearly just a cash in movie. There are movies made to make great cinema and movies made to make money and this is disappointingly one of the latter.
 
Going to see it in IMAX 3D HFR! Can't wait
 
I don't understand why people don't like the realism of no motion blur. I love it on my tv! Hyper real goes hand in hand with high definition. 
 
I didn't read the book so I don't know in comparison to the movie. Well I'm planning to see it myself and I'll see if the movie is good or not.
 
+Rudie Verougstraete Part of the issue is whether the extra expense of 3D is worth it. I have certainly had movies ruined by poor projection, over-loud soundtracks or technological malfunctions.
 
I was okay with The Hobbit being 2 movies. but I do think 3 movies is stretching it. Especially with each movie being close to 3 hours each. I've read it, I've watched the rakin & bass animation. The Hobbit is  a slow paced story sure, but a slow paced, close to 9 hours in total, movie is going test anyone.
There's a reason why LoTR's pacing and plot layout wasn't exactly like the book. Otherwise we would have had Frodo and Sam walking around for a 3 hour movie. 
 
+Rudie Verougstraete In the UK it's in 2D, 3D and 3D+ High Frame Rate. Initial reviews suggest the HFR version is next to unwatchable. I'll probably go a couple of times - the first time I'll see it in 2D and then risk the 3D version.
 
+Kevin Partner when evening showings are exclusively 3D, leaving you no choice at the high demand times. The cinema and film providers, are artificially increasing the 3D figures and their subsequent revenue. I personally see little if no benefit in 3D. To me it doesn't add an extra dimension to any of the 3D films I've seen. If you'll excuse the pun.
 
+Andrew Harpin Exactly, I agree completely. Given the choice, most cinema viewers would, in my opinion, choose to save money (and headaches) and watch it in 2D. As it happens, my local cinema is showing the 2D version in peak times so we're booked to see it on Saturday night.
 
Kevin, the reason for 3D is because of money. They make more money when people spend an extra $6 per person to see the movie. I read an interesting article after avatar came out, which basically said since the huge success of Avatar, film companies were rising to do 3 movies. They were willing to make it 3D,even if the film wasnt initially 3D because of the earnings
 
+darrell dudley as I said, I'm not convinced that they would make more money if they ran equal numbers of 2D and 3D screenings- it's simple economics, the lower price of 2D would mean bigger audiences for that format. 3D was a novelty at the time of Avatar but many are tired of it. After all, if it's such a success why are the majority of films still released in 2D only?
 
+Kevin Partner Because many theaters aren't equipped to run 3D movies.  Older theaters are already set to run 2D and living in the country, I can tell you they are not even remotely interested in upgrading the experience.  Hell, your lucky you can get a selection of snacks out here, let alone 3D movies.
Add a comment...