I went and saw The Hobbit in 3D IMAX tonight.

The 3D experience was fantastic!  We were sitting a bit close to the screen for my liking (row 6, and a bit off centre).  Some of the 3D effects felt like there were right on top of us. A bit freaky at times.

So far as the movie goes, I found that it had a different feel than the previous 3 movies.  I can't quite put my finger on how it felt different.  At some points it kind of reminded me of the sets from The Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Some of the special effects were quite cheesy, and where the computer generated portions of scenes in the previous 3 movies were so well done that it was hard to tell reality from computer generated, it was very apparent in The Hobbit at times.

Since the book started out as a bedtime story for Tolkien's son, the movie had a light airy tone to it, with many comedic elements.  But it's not a kids movie because there is also a great deal of violence in it (a head being hacked off, stabbings....you know, typical sword fight blood and gore).

And there is a huge amount of license liberty taken. Most of the movie (70% maybe?) didn't happen in the book.

Without giving away any spoilers, I just have to mention that the scene with the eagles seen in 3D is freaking awesome!!!

I've heard some say that it was filmed differently; something about a faster speed and that some found it nauseating to watch. I didn't find it nauseating.  But it might be what gave it that weird "feel" that I mentioned.

Because it was a Tolkien story I give it 5/5 stars.

As a general movie? Being honest I'd say 3.5 out of 5 stars.

I am going back to see it again in a couple weeks, this time sitting more towards the back, in the centre of the screen.

Hi

I've done some experimenting at Imax and I've found that the best spot to sit for a 3D movie is in the center of rows 9 through 11.

Less then 9 is too close, and after row 12 or so you start to lose part of the effect because the edges of the screen become too obvious in your peripheral vision.

For me row 10 center is perfect.

We always go to the first showing of the day, usually around 11 am and can sit pretty much anyplace we want as long as it isn't the first day.

Mike

 I've just come from seeing this.

After the The Fellowship of the Ring, for all the liberties they took to make it work as a cinematic narrative, it still felt like The Lord of the Rings and I was buzzing with excitement for the next film.

Not so this time, I'm sorry to say. I couldn't see the point in some of the liberties they took this time around, while others were clearly there to lay foundations for the third film, which I guess will focus on the conflict with the necromancer and be 99% original material. The tone seemed to change so much from scene to scene that the film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. Also, it didn't seem very well paced to me - it just isn't a good sign when I find myself clock watching at the cinema.

It seems to me that the film has two big problems: 1) The Hobbit is a children's story, while they want the same audience who went to see the Lord of the Rings 2) They want another epic trilogy, which means padding with a whole lot more original story.   

Thanks for the reviews. My favorite reviewer, Roger Ebert has not yet reviewed the film. I think he broke his hip recently.

I'm not going to see the movie until next Friday.

I have to admit that I am a little puzzled about how they made this fairly short book into an epic, but I love anything Tolkien, I just hope the stuff they added isn't to off the wall.

Mike

Quote - I'm not going to see the movie until next Friday.

I have to admit that I am a little puzzled about how they made this fairly short book into an epic, but I love anything Tolkien, I just hope the stuff they added isn't to off the wall.

Mike

The movie is basically Old Bilbo's whole story to Frodo about his adventure and how he came to have the ring.

It was explained how the dwarves lost their mountain.

They managed to build a bit of a bridge to tie this movie into The Fellowship of the Ring.

They touched on how Bilbo came to be involved in the adventure, the trolls, deciphering the map, the capture and escape from the orcs and Bilbo's interaction with Golum.  How they got to those points though was largely the imagination of Peter Jackson and his writing team.

The Hobbit glossed over a great many things. Peter Jackson "created" what Tolkien didn't.

They also introduced some elements of the story that will be expanded on in the other 2 movies.

"I've heard some say that it was filmed differently; something about a faster speed and that some found it nauseating to watch. I didn't find it nauseating.  But it might be what gave it that weird "feel" that I mentioned."

Hi this is because it was filmed at 48 Frames per second , twice the frame rate that most of us are used to watching in the Cinema.

there is a big debate in the "industry " about wether this will become the new standard or not.

Cheers

Quote - "I've heard some say that it was filmed differently; something about a faster speed and that some found it nauseating to watch. I didn't find it nauseating.  But it might be what gave it that weird "feel" that I mentioned."

Hi this is because it was filmed at 48 Frames per second , twice the frame rate that most of us are used to watching in the Cinema.

there is a big debate in the "industry " about wether this will become the new standard or not.

Cheers

Yes, I'd read about the 48 fps. Although, I think many cinemas are not yet equipped to show that version and are simply showing a standard frame rate print?

The only film I've really enjoyed that much in the revised 3D format (compared to watching the same film in 2D) so far is Judge Dredd, which I thought used the parallax effect that, to me at least, seems to still be inherent in the 3D format, to great stylistic effect.

Otherwise I tend to find that the 3D effect simply distracts from my brain / optical system's natural ability to extract an understanding / simulation of 3D space from a 2D image.

I've not seen the Hobbit yet, and not sure if my local cinemas will provide the 48 fps or not... I hope so. It would be good to see what that looks like.

I got to see it in 3d hfr... looks great, especially the movement.  It's a shame they didn't have that stuff for LOTR.

I'm still not sold on 3d (though it was good  in this movie), but I love HFR.

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!

I'll be honest and say I was geeking at the 3d but the story fell at bit flat, there wasn't enough character development and didn't quite feel really attached to anyone. Yes, I know that is a ton of content to represent in 2 hours. It is a delicate balance between 3d geeking and good character development. LOTR did a good job at that balance but even then some of the movies were short in that catagory. I will say that Bilbo actor did a great job, well cast for the Watson of Sherlock Holmes fame.

I am being hyper critical and "all in all" I enjoyed the movie.

Hi

I finally went to see it.

I did see it in 3D and in this case I didn't think the 3D added much to the whole thing.

I went with 3 other people and all of us felt the same way, that it was too long, too loud and too repetitive as far as the violence went.

Everyone said that while they were glad they went they were disappointed with it.

Pretty much the same comments as the previous poster.

It just seemed to lack something that the earlier films had.

Mike

So far, with every review I've read and everyone I've talked to, there seems to be a very consistent pattern. If you really liked the LOTR films, you tend to be disappointed with The Hobbit. If you didn't like the LOTR films, you tend to like The Hobbit. And if you're "meh" about the first, you're probably going to feel the same about the other. Strange that.

And yet both my mother and I are bucking that trend.

We both really liked the LotR films (I've got both versions, happily), and enjoyed The Hobbit. I'll be getting the soundtrack, DVD, and eagerly awaiting next year's release of Part 2.

Unlike with The Dark Knight Rises, which I saw recently, there weren't any moments that stuck out to me as inconsistent or immersion-breaking.

Anyone else "geek-out" over the detail in Smaug's eye, or was that just me?

I dunno about anyone else, but i trust film/book/food critics about as much as i trust politicians. The only true critique anyone can offer is one of two outcomes.

a. I liked it

b. I didn't like it.

Simple as that imho.

if i had only viewed films the critics gave the thumbs up too and ignored films the critics panned, i would have missed out on psycho, fightclub, scrooged, predator and the shining to name a few..........

I really did enjoy the LOTR trilogy but am under no illusion that you can stretch 300 pages of narrative and dialogue into 3 full length feature films without shall we say embellishing the plot slightly. i haven't seen the Hobbit yet, but am looking forward to seeing Martin Freeman as Bilbo, he is an actor whose work i enjoy, Hitchikers was excellent and the Nativity kids movie he did was so much fun and so moving at this time of year.  Roll on the new year :)

It's weird, I liked the LOTR films and I knew this one would be a little different but I still loved it.

About the pacing and character development, the Hobbit was meant to be a children's book, therefore it needed a different pacing and kids care less about character development.  Quite frankly there are too many characters to develop them all.  I was a little surprised when I saw they added in some characters from LOTR, but it made sense to do so.

I expected to love it and didn't. Way too violent for my taste, but the cgi was spectacular. How they did the halfling to wizard scaling in 3d impressed me.

I think king mad it more violent to keep it in line with the other films.  Plus there isn't that much action in the first half of the proper book.  Certainly not enough for a 3 hour movie.

Well, here's the deal with the book to film translation, I believe he not only referenced the Hobbit but also referenced the Silmarillion and possibly some other short stories that were meant to take place when the Hobbit did to fill the time and lengthen the movie.  I have not seen it yet but I'm not going into it expecting the same experience as the much darker Lord of The Rings. The hobbit was always more light hearted and it's unfortunate that it was the last of the books that were made into a film this go around, as people go to see it expecting something it was never intended to be.   If I have even half the fun I had with the Rankin/Bass animated Tolkien adaptations once I finally see the film, I'll be happy.

For those who are sad about the movie being different than the book

I am not.. I did not care much about any of the books and love the movies

I loved the III lord of Rings movies and I love this one

What a great story... and what a fantastic way to tell it

The way they made Riverdale

The way they included the wood wizzard (the Brown) with his rabbits

The riddle.. the ring

The 3d element of the butterfly

the last part with the dragon waking up

FANTASTIC

No it is not like in the book.. it is different and i do not mind..

only one point of nega critique.. we have to wait too long for part II and III

The movies are already ready and i cant wait to see them :D

Quote - For those who are sad about the movie being different than the book

I am not.. I did not care much about any of the books and love the movies

So you didn't have any expectations of the movie > Quote - The way they made Riverdale

I thought it was beautiful too, as in the ring series. > Quote - The way they included the wood wizzard (the Brown) with his rabbits

Loved the brown wizard, with the bird poop in his beard.

I enjoyed The Hobbit, but seriously, storm giants? That was a "wtf" moment.

Directors of big budget action movies these days seem to feel that an audience will lose interest if the dangers aren't exaggerated into literal cliffhangers with over-the-top CG time and time again. Negotiating a dangerous mountain path along a cliff just isn't exciting enough, apparently.

These movies tend to be like those contraptions where a steel ball runs along a track, triggering all manner of devices that lift it up, drop it down and send it on its way. It’s more like an amusement park ride than a drama. Storytelling is more effective when believability is cultivated by a little restraint, a healthy appreciation of physics and an awareness of when impossible odds are actually impossible.

Quote - I enjoyed The Hobbit, but seriously, storm giants? That was a "wtf" moment.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the Stone Giants are in the book when they are crossing the Misty Mountains during the storm.

Coldrake

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the Stone Giants are in the book when they are crossing the Misty Mountains during the storm.

I do not remember that at all, but I was twelve when I read it.

** Stone-giants** first appeared in The Hobbit. It was their only known appearance, although they are mentioned briefly inThe Fellowship of the Ring. They first appeared in Chapter 4 (Over Hill And Under Hill), where they are described as hurling rocks at one another as in a game, during a violent thunderstorm. Bilbo, Gandalf, and the thirteen Dwarves, if they actually saw them, were the only ones Tolkien mentioned as ever having seen them. Their physical form was not explained, nor was much else about them, leading some to read the Stone-giants as a metaphor for crashing thunderbolts, or something similar. The rocks were described as smashing the trees they fell upon, therefore they must have been very large and very heavy, and therefore the giants must have been very strong. Also, the stone-giants were said to be able to reach heights as tall as forty feet high, as told only in the Red Book of Westmarch.