I saw The Hobbit (2D version) last Sunday. And it certainly was an at the very least an okay result. Although I feel they made more changes to the original story than was necessary, certainly more than I'd have liked.

But my main problem I had with the movie was visual. They made too much use of CGI compared to the LOTR movies. Why are most orcs suddenly computer generated instead of costumed people? The latter certainly looks better, it looks real.
My eyes also had trouble following during certain action scenes, especially in Goblin Town.

Saw it yesterday in 2D. I found it beautiful, and boring. Most of the changes from the book seemed unnecessary, and much less forgivable than, for example, Tom Bombadil's disappearance in LotR. I didn't hate any specific part of the movie (with the possible exception of Gandalf's way of saving the team from the trolls), I was just bored most of the time.

It's not that I expected it to be a new LotR either, it's just that they seemed to remove or underplay the parts I loved in the book, and add a lot of stuff that made no sense to me. I can see why they would make Azog and Bolg one character, but why make him such a big ennemy? Isn't Smaug enough? I can also understand why they needed exposition about the whole Necromancer situation, but did they really need to add super-fast rabbits or telepathy during those scenes? They felt like cheap tricks because the writers were hard pressed to link the new parts with the existing story.

Now, that's a lot of criticism. I'm not saing it's the worst movie ever made. But it brings back memories of "the phantom menace". I wish they used less money, less time, and more heart.

Am I the only one here who loved this film?

Yusei, the telepathy thing is something elves are actually able to do once they reach a certain age I believe. I can't remember where I read it though

frodolives, I loved it as a film. I was disappointed in it as an adaptation

"But it brings back memories of "the phantom menace". I wish they used less money, less time, and more heart. "

Although I would not go as far as to compare The Hobbit with APM. Your "less money...more heart" comment is a good summation of the movie.

The production teams in movies today really need to realize that just because they can do something (48fps, 3D, etc.) doesn't mean that they should do that thing. Once again I saw no scene in the Hobbit that would have been greatly augmented by 3D viewing.

I loved it too!

Same here.

I also absolutely loved it.

Those saying "less money, more heart" are just being insulting. If you listen to any of the people involved you can tell they put every ounce of their heart into it. Just because you disagree with their choices doesn't mean they aren't pouring their heart into trying to create what they believe to be (and I agree with them) an amazing rendition of the source material.

Those who hate 3d, feel free to continue, but as far as I'm concerned every single second of the movie was enhanced by being in HFR 3d (well, at least the 2nd time after my brain had mostly adjusted). Please don't pretend that just because you see no value in it that it can't possibly improve the experience for anyone and I won't pretend that eveyone gets the same value out of it that I do.

This is in the LotR, chapter Many Partings:

This is a faculty possessed by the elves, due to their fëar being able to exercise much more complete control over their bodies (in the sense of overcoming the barrier of the body for pure mental communication) than Men are able to do.

This ability is described in much greater detail in Tolkien's essay Ósanwe-kenta, published in Vinyar Tengwar, Issues 39 and 41 (the periodical of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship).

Cheers
Tolwen

And there I was writing my reply hoping you'd turn up and provide the necessary quotation Tolwen

"Those who hate 3d, feel free to continue, but as far as I'm concerned every single second of the movie was enhanced by being in HFR 3d (well, at least the 2nd time after my brain had mostly adjusted). Please don't pretend that just because you see no value in it that it can't possibly improve the experience for anyone and I won't pretend that eveyone gets the same value out of it that I do."

By all mean please quote a specific scene that would have absolutely been ruined if not for 3D. I will give them credit on one thing, at least there were no chessey sword or spear points going toward the audiance.

I don't hate 3D, it would be stupid to hate a piece of technology..it is simply there. But, just because it is there doesn't mean that it has to be used in every frikin' movie that comes out. Concentrate on story and acting, not effects.

I initially wanted to disagree with that, but in fact you're right, I was intentionally insulting. Mostly because I believe some of the choices were made not in order to improve the story or the adaptation, but in order to dumb the story down for a wider audience and in order to get three movies out of a short book. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm just not seeing what they had in mind. I'm definitely in the minority here, since most of my group enjoyed the movie more than I did, and I was the only one being bored.

I feel the need to provide an example of the "dumbing down" of the story, in order not to be called a troll. My example is, in fact, about trolls. I don't understand why they changed the ending of that scene from trickery to magic and visual effects. I don't see any explanation other than the fear that the audience would not understand it was Gandalf talking, or maybe that the audience would expect Gandalf to show some power.

(ETA: and by the way, I have no intention to spend hours bashing on the movie, I just wanted to post my opinion. I'm very happy for all of those who enjoyed it)

In what way is not being ruined by not being in 3d is the same as being enhanced by being in 3d? As I said, I understand that you may not get the same enjoyment out of the 3d as I do. You, however, seem to want to make it so people like me can't get the enjoyment we do out of the 3d by saying they should not bother doing it. I haven't heard a single person claim the acting was poor, so they clearly also concentrated on that. As for the story, I and many others feel they captured the feel of that admirably. They had the resources to do many things, they did not sacrifice story and acting for effects, they chose effects that they felt told the story in the best way possible. You are free to disagree with their choices, but again it is just plain insulting to both those who made the movie and those of us who liked their choices to claim that they sacrificed story and acting for the sake of effects.

On the trolls, I can fully appreciate the objection to the change, though I don't mind it myself (though properly done the original method could have been very cool as well). I suspect they did it the way the did because film is an inherently visual medium and the way it was presented in the book was a less visual solution. Certainly doesn't make it the right choice, but judging from all of the production videos and interviews I've seen, I can guarantee a great deal of thought went into making the choice and dumbing down for wider audience appeal was not the reason the choice was made.

"seem to want to make it so people like me can't get the enjoyment we do out of the 3d by saying they should not bother doing it."

If you think eye strain and slight migrines are part of the movie experience, more power to you. I just don't think I should have to endure a headache after I shell out $15 for the "experience" of gimmicky and useless 3D. Fortunately, Hollywood seems to realize that some of us revile 3D and have thus far released most 3D movies in 2D.

Perhaps you missed my original rating of the movie above;

"Overall I give it a 7/10. I wasn't overwhelmed by anything I saw, but neither was I underwhelmed. An enjoyable nights entertainment. "

It was just "good" perhaps if I was expecting something in particular (ie Helm's Deep in TT, or the Charge of the Rohirrim in RoTK). The acting was fine, production value was on par with the previous movies; perhaps a little too much CCG (Stone Giants?!). I certainly wouldn't say it was boring, but it wasn't particularly engrossing either. It was a good start, I have higher hopes for the second movie.

Having seen it, I can't wait for the fan-edit that chops out all the changes from the book, moves the flashback to Erebor to after the dwarves arrive at Bag End, cuts out the Radagast nonsense, and fixes the timing with the Necromancer and Mirkwood. You know, the movie of The Hobbit, as opposed to The Lord of Rings, Part 0.

And I haven't heard anyone who loves 3d advocate for the complete removal of 2d, unlike those who hate it... Also, the HFR would quite possibly eliminate the eye strain and headache for you as it makes a much more true to life 3d which makes the eye and brain work less to accept it. With most 3d my eyes feel just a little tired after a long movie, though nowhere near the headache inducing strain that some report, but after The Hobbit I didn't feel even that even though it's the longest 3d movie I've seen.

When a movie comes out that has had some thought put into it on how to apply 3D to augment the story that is being told, and not used as a simple marketing ploy to pad ticket sales then perhaps I will give it another try. But, somehow I just don't see that happening.

As I said before, I really liked the movie overall. It was a fun night out and I will go and see it again in 2D and then in HFR 3D again. I thought the action scenes were amazing, even if over-the-top. And I really loved Bilbo and Gollum. I think the film will create many more fans and hopefully they will read the book.

What I didn't like...

1. That the trolls didn't argue until morning with Gandalf using their voices to trick them into talking all night. I don't know why they changed this. It could have been epic.

2. The stone giants were actually made of stones and humongous and that the entire party of adventurers were endangered by them. I thought that scene was spectacular to watch, but ridiculous. They could not have survived that peril.

3. Radagast. Very weird. The whole scene with him doing an incantation over the hedge hog was strange. I hated his hat and the 'stuff' on his face and in his hair.

4. That Bilbo rescued Thorin from the goblins during the climactic scene. I think it overshadowed the eagles and prematurely set up a friendship bond between Thorin and Bilbo. In the book, Bilbo was almost left behind again, he wasn't a hero yet. He would have been left behind if he hadn't saved himself by grabbing Dori's leg as he was lifted out of the tree by the eagle. Now, for the rest of the films, Bilbo will be the clear hero as he rescues them from the spiders and the elves and then Smaug.

This post has been edited by JamesRBrown on Dec 19 2012, 12:11 AM

I was pleasantly surprised by some of the scenes with Radagast. I thought he felt remarkably like a character from the book, even though he wasn't. He was weird and quirky, but not unlike Beorn could be in his own way. The only scene I really disliked was the Rhosgobel-rabbits one, which went from being funny to being ridiculous.

I like:
- HFR 3D.
- Continuity in the films line.
- Actors, landscapes, soundtrack.
- The Hobbit is not The Lord of the Rings.

I dislike:
- Fool humor (burping, asses, Three Stooges performance).
- Safe zone (dangerous hazards but no dwarves wounded).

Overall: 7/10.

Same for me.

I liked the movie, but the battle sequences were too much over the top for my liking.
Just to say, I have a soft spot for the combat sequences from "The Fellowship of the Ring", more "tight" and dramatic imo than the ones in the later movies.