I saw The Hobbit today in IMAX 3d. I loved it! I can't wait to see the next one. it started off a little slow while all the back story was told, but after that, it was non-stop action.

I just hate going to see a movie that doesn't end, though. I'll wait for it on DVD.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:13 pm I saw The Hobbit today in IMAX 3d. I loved it! I can't wait to see the next one. it started off a little slow while all the back story was told, but after that, it was non-stop action.

Thanks slammr, I was hoping to hear from someone about it. I'm planning to go when the crowds dwindle down. Was this the same director who did, "Lord of the Ring?"

I also wonder how many times Jackson sneaked his kids into this one as extras?

i haven't seen it yet, though i plan to. odd that critics, for the most part, seem to be panning the film. one critcism that i see popping up here & there, is that 48 frames per second makes it seem hyper-real & distracts viewers from being able to immerse themselves. cg thats, quite literally, too good. weird.

humanbean (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:00 pm i haven't seen it yet, though i plan to. odd that critics, for the most part, seem to be panning the film. one critcism that i see popping up here & there, is that 48 frames per second makes it seem hyper-real & distracts viewers from being able to immerse themselves. cg thats, quite literally, too good. weird.

It is being shown using regular frame rates at most theaters. I saw the HFR movie in 3d on an IMAX screen, and I absolutely loved it. This is 3d that puts you right in the movie not 3d that tries to impress you with 3d effects. I was lost in this movie, immersed in it. It ended all too soon.

I had read some of the critic's reviews and was worried that the movie wouldn't live up to my expectations. It did. Does it have all the magic of LOTR? Maybe, not; but LOTR is at the top of my list of favorite movies. For pure spectacle, this one is hard to beat.

I'm not a movie critic. I wasn't looking for things about this movie to pick apart. Maybe, when I see it again, which I'm sure I will, I'll see some, but for this first time, I was too immersed in the movie to do anything but enjoy it.

Hash (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:24 pm Thanks slammr, I was hoping to hear from someone about it. I'm planning to go when the crowds dwindle down. Was this the same director who did, "Lord of the Ring?"

It was definitely Peter Jackson that also did this movie.

humanbean (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:00 pm i haven't seen it yet, though i plan to. odd that critics, for the most part, seem to be panning the film. one critcism that i see popping up here & there, is that 48 frames per second makes it seem hyper-real & distracts viewers from being able to immerse themselves. cg thats, quite literally, too good. weird.

If you want to see 48fps, then go to the special showings. Most reports are that the sets do look like sets and look cheap. Some people also claim they can see a shimmer, some say that the motion is jerky like sped up jerky. The entire film does not have a 48fps print. The CGI is not 48fps. That also disturbs people.

That's not a problem in the IMAX or the regular 3D or theatrical screenings.

From what I've heard form the fairest of critics, Peter Jackson did not have the time or the money to do everything in 48fps or to perfect the new technology. So if you go to one of those screenings, be warned it might not live up to hype but then, it's only the first time anyone ever did a full scale production of it. Give it a break.

I saw it at the midnight screening last night, and did see it in the 48fps 3D print. It was freaking AWESOME! The story did drag a bit in places, and the action pushed the boundaries of plausibility a bit more than the Lord of the Rings series, (seriously, guys, 13 dwarves fighting off an entire city of orcs during the escape scene was really pushing it...) but for the most part this is an absolute cinematic experience, one of the rare ones that makes you rethink what it's even possible to show in film. The detail and the movement is so crisp and smooth that it almost feels like a real-life adventure being filmed. The sheer level of detail in scenes like Smaug's takeover of the Lonely Mountain, and the panoramas of the Misty Mountains and the Shire, these are so breathtakingly gorgeous that it's worth just watching it to see it, let alone to care about what's actually happening. Also, the direction, writing, and acting are all completely top-notch. At no point does this movie feel like it's just going through the motions of the book, and that things are happening just because the script says that they had to... scenes like the Unexpected Party and the amazing Riddles in the Dark sequence, they are done so well that it somehow felt even more real than when it happened in the book.

Overall, this is an amazing film, and you're doing yourself a real disservice if you let the mediocre critical reviews deter you. No, I don't believe that it's quite as good as the original Lord of the Rings films, but those are in my top 10 films of all time, so that's still saying something. This is one of those films that only comes around once every few years or so, the kind that will completely wrap you up in another world and take you on an amazing ride. Don't miss it! I'll definitely be seeing again, possibly even twice, just so that I can soak up the sheer wonder of its drop-dead-gorgeous theatrical presentation.

Also, if you ask me, this had a much more satisfying "ending" than the first Lord of the Rings film. No, the overarching conflict of the book has not been resolved at the end, but there is a very satisfying character-growth arc that reaches its zenith at the ending, and is quite satisfying.

This had an opening midnight showing of $13 million...

That's good but not spectacular.

Breaking Dawn p2 made $30 million.

Marvel's The Avengers made $18.7 million.

Avatar only made $3.5 million at midnight.

If it breaks 100 million for the weekend, then it is on its way to make oodles and oodles of money (that's a technical term).