Can people who have seen the Hobbit comment on whether or not they've seen it as 48fps?

48fps?

Yes! Highly recommend.

I finally watched John Carter on cable, and boy, that is one cheap looking $250M picture. At least when James Cameron spends that much money, you get to see what he spent it on.

And Andrew Stanton is not a very good (live-action) director. I don't remember the last time I've noticed how bad the blocking was on a Hollywood produced movie. There were several times I had to pause and rewind just to understand what I just saw. I guess in CGI, blocking is something you can go back and fix afterwards, but you are limited to how much you can go back and reshoot in live-action (not that Stanton didn't try).

David, yes we did.

Honestly...I'm not sure I could. I mean, yes, it was very long, but if you had to pin me down to what I would have cut to make it shorter, there isn't an obvious scene I'd willingly leave out.

If I'd had to have cut anything, it would have been the framing device at the beginning with Frodo.

Jessica, I wouldn't have left any scenes out. But there were a number of scenes that could have been tightened up.

Scola, I didn't, so I can't comment. The 3-d is lovely, though.

Our projector was...out of alignment, maybe? At the beginning. I thought it looked wrong, and then I noticed a lot of people fiddling with their glasses, so I quickly went outside and told a staff member. They stopped the movie, apologized, fixed the problem, and started over. The audience was really appreciative (I doubt they've gotten applause for stopping a showing before), and it was absolutely the right call, rather than trying to fix it on the fly. And there are some shots in the prologue that you really want in good 3-D.

But there were a number of scenes that could have been tightened up.

My sister estimates that if Thorin cut down on his staring-meaningfully-into-the-distance time, this movie could have come in under 2 hours.

My sister estimates that if Thorin cut down on his staring-meaningfully-into-the-distance time, this movie could have come in under 2 hours.

I could have lived with all the fight scenes being cut by 2/3, and we would have lost nothing in either plot or characterization.

Did anyone else get the sense that Thorin is being explicitly positioned as this movie's Boromir?

Also, there will be a hella lot of sad fangirls at the end of the last movie, IJS.

I had lots of niggly issues, like Bilbo being the first one to attack the Orcs after Thorin gets beat down, and being successful at it. And the conversation about the Witch-King of Angmar ignoring the prophecy about how he would die--the point is that he never died, and was never buried.

But I loved the Riddles scene, and thought the choice to play Gollum as split personality worked really well.

In general, it was entertaining, but I thought it was too close in tone and narrative technique to the earlier trilogy. Some bits seemed pretty repetitive, like the bridges and cliffs tilting and falling so people could cross a chasm. That's a pretty damn specific thing to use over again--twice, no less!

Well you know, that's just how chasms work in Middle-Earth!

Heh, Jessica. I though gravity and momentum were remarkably kind in this movie, as well.

I really, really agree with your next-to-last point. I think that was the most brilliant bit of inspiration they had. Although I also liked the drawing out of the home/belonging and lack of same theme. Although, a few of Gandalf's speeches clearly wanted to be taken from Tolkein, but there wasn't anything to pull, so they wrote it instead and didn't quite hit the mark

I'm not sure how I feel about the decision to create a specific enemy. It reminds me of that one uruk in the original trilogy.