[Yudster]

Ok I want to see it now.

[Bruvva]

Saw it on Boxing Day with one of the parental units and enjoyed it, I was initially a bit dubious about it becoming a trilogy as the Hobbit is a short Children's book and I really didn't think the material was there to justify making 3 humongous films out of it but Jackson's nabbed parts from other sources (namely the Silmarillion and if you've not read that, don't. Your shopping list is more interesting.) and made the Hobbit a "proper" prequel to LOTR which in its book incarnation, it isn't.

[dimtimjim]

Me n Mrs DTJ seen dis over xmas. the first half hour drags ever so slightly, but after that the next 3 hours fly by. Good stuff, not overly dragged out and up to PJ's usual standard. Loved it.

[Latina]

I've seen The Hobbit twice now; once in 3D with 48 fps and once in "normal 3D". It wasn't really on my agenda to see it a second time as I felt once was enough (but it was a family outing at Christmas and I didn't want to miss out), however I'm sort of glad I did as it meant being able to see it at the normal frame rate after what was to me a very weird experience at the high rate.

I know it's probably a case of our movie-watching eyes just being used to 24 fps as that's all we've known since the silent era, but what resulted for me was the long shots and CGI scenes - graphically impressive as they were - looking like a hi-res computer game, and the rest of the scenes looking like they were shot on video (if that's the right term - I mean they didn't look filmic). For example, I kept thinking of the BBC's Chronicles of Narnia whenever the dwarfs were running through the forest.

So did anybody see it on opening day? My wife and I are going to see it on Sunday with our daughter. Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode devoted most of their movie review show to it today. Consensus was that it's too long. Could easily lop out 30 minutes from the beginning, but otherwise worth seeing.

Podcast of the show is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode

My flatmate and I listened to that review just after we got home from the cinema (after seeing the high frame rate version); I agreed to some extent with them about the length but my flatmate didn't at all. I have to say that the second time I saw it convinced me a lot more that it was too long at the beginning, but that's probably not fair as I hadn't expected to enjoy it as much the second time anyway.

Going back to the frame rate (sorry), it was interesting in the Peter Jackson interview in that podcast how he described 48 fps as being like cutting a hole in the screen and seeing through it to something actually real. All I could think was "but why would I want a film to do that?" To me it spoils the whole point of a film, and especially a fantasy one.

[dimtimjim]

I couldn't see the point in either 3D or 3D HFR (or whatever it's called), so I booked me n Mrs DTJ into the 2D version and payed the extra to have the quality seats (well worth the extra few £'s) instead.

Nothing against 3D films, seen my fair share now, but didn't see the point for Hobbit and I didn't come out regretting my decision.

What does get my chuff though is the cost of a cinema trip. Two adult (extra comfy) seats was £25 and ruddy £8 on top for a medium popcorn and medium coke - a fecking rip off when you compare it with the price of owning the blu-ray and having it forever. Plus, if your home entertainment is up to much, its not far off as good as a cinema experience anyway, misus the rustling packets, the coughing, the inability to pause when you need a wee...

I fail to see how the 'experience' justifies the silly prices they charge and to me its now just like Motorway services; they have simply priced themselves out of the market to be a viable option. We'd toyed with taking the kids too, but that would have pushed it over £50! To watch one film, once! We're going out for dinner on Saturday, and I've budgeted £150 to feed a family of four - yes its a lot, but its a special occasion and a treat.

But I just think £50 for a family of 4 to go to watch a film at the cinema is just too much. *ers.

Rant over!

[neilt0]

Totally agree on the prices. I'll sometimes see a "big" film in IMAX or IMAX 3D in that there London at the BFI IMAX. It's expensive, but you sort of get what you pay for.

However, I saw Batman:DKR at my local MultiMegaPlex Odeon. I was careful to book tickets at the "biggest" and best of the screens, but since I last went, all the screens are now pathetically small. The experience was terrible. I get a better experience at home. I have a home cinema setup, but it's nothing special -- a 1080p projector (2008 vintage), 110" screen, A/V amp etc. and it's way better than the Odeon.

I'm not sold at all on 3D, so don't really care if I watch a "3D" film in 2D at home. I hear rumblings that 3D may be falling out of favour, it'll be interesting to see where it goes. As for 48fps, many Sony tellies have a frame interpolation function that lets you upconvert to 60 or 120fps or whatever and I think it looks terrible. Everything looks like a cheap soap opera. It does work quite well with cartoons, but for live action, it doesn't really work for me, although I haven't seen Hobbit (1 of 3) in 3D/48.

[Badger Mark]

Going back to the frame rate (sorry), it was interesting in the Peter Jackson interview in that podcast how he described 48 fps as being like cutting a hole in the screen and seeing through it to something actually real. All I could think was "but why would I want a film to do that?" To me it spoils the whole point of a film, and especially a fantasy one.

That is exactly my problem with the 48 fps thing. I don't want it to look like I'm there live on the set. I want it to be separate from reality. And there's no way I could justify to myself the cost of a ticket for that experience.