I've seen the movie twice so far, once in IMAX 3D and once in 2D.

To be honest, I prefer the IMAX sound, even though Peter Jackson doesn't seem to use the movement of sound to great effect (Ridley Scott did a great job on sound in Prometheus). But the sheer volume at IMAX cinemas helps to drown out the inevitable whispering you can hear coming from the audience. As for the visuals, I don't think you lose anything important by watching it in 2D.

As to the story changes, it's been more than a decade since I read The Hobbit, but I do recall that the book itself is not particularly well paced, does not fit seamlessly into the lore of the LOTR trilogy that follows, and relies a good bit on deus ex machina.

Please understand: I was profoundly offended by both the changes to story and the casting choices in the LOTR movies and couldn't bear to watch them more than once. I went to the last one grudgingly.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, I absolutely adored, and have already watched it twice. And I think many story changes were essential, given that it's been filmed as a direct prequel to the LOTR and needs consistency, and some plot elements that do well in a book, do not translate well into film, particularly when that film is cut into 3 movies which will be released a year apart. I think to keep people interested, you need a visible enemy of some sort and there must be some kind of victory during each film for the good guys. The film still has to give dramatic catharsis as an individual film. Were the next installation coming out next week (as in a miniseries), perhaps the original plot would have withstood a modern audience's expectations. But with such a long wait, you have trouble filming one third of a book, and selling that to studios. I didn't find Jackson's changes to be out of line for the spirit of the book at all.

Of course, I'm a bit of a Richard Armitage fan, so I can't be completely objective!

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.