RESULTS: What Did You Think Of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY?

I loved the tone of the movie. I loved that it wasn't LOTR all over again. I loved that we got a well put together good old fashioned "go on a quest and get the dragon" type of movie. *****-It was better than Cats...I want to see it again and again!!! Naaaw but it was a good movie.

I enjoyed every minute of The Hobbit! One of the best films of 2012.

Not to forget most of the dwarves didn't get a line or development, really makes us not to care for them if they get on danger.

I have to see it again. I fell asleep 45 minutes in and NOBODY I went with woke me up!!!!! DAMMIT!!!!

@CrowPirate1 lmao

Intruder!!! Long time no see glad to see you're back!!

@gigacrusher45 amen brotha! Couldn't have said it any better! I thought the movie couldn't have been any better

Well....

Maybe make the goblin king's chin not look like balls they should've called him the gonads king lol jk

Jokes aside though this movie was AMAZING I recommend everyone to go see it!!!

I could never sit through this twice. I'll rent it and then just use the fast forward button to watch the movie the way it should of been edited. Plus, the whole 48 fps makes the film look like a movie that would go straight to DVD anyway

Video games have been trying harder and harder to look like films, and now films are trying harder and harder to look like video games.

When I say almost 3 hours (which I already knew duh) I mean PJ extended some scenes with no need. almost 30 minutes on bilbo's house, radagast scenes with the orcs running after him. Jesus, there's still gonna be an extended version on dvd later! God help us. The movie felt too long in an unnecessary way, different of LOTR, which developed good stuff in it's time.

And the dwarves, of course they were not developed in the book as well, but this is a movie, that amount of characters should have some kind of development, and I'm sorry, but the only ones with some kind of personality there were Thorin (which I loved), Balin, Dwalin (very few), Kili, Fili. Some others had like one line. Gloin? how can I get a sense of his personality? Of course is hard to develop each of them, but if Jackson focused less on Radagast and other unnecessary stuff, maybe they could have been more well developed.

Oh and not that I didn't know about how long the movie was, but I don't normally go after knowing how long it is, the surprise is always better, in this case, was weird. I love LOTR. I like this hobbit movie too, but I admit it was not FANTASTIC or the best thing ever. The 48 fps was also badly done by him. You guys have to open your eyes, alright is middle-earth, but know that it was very poor.

I enjoyed the movie. I also enjoyed the Hobbit menu at Dennys, so 5*

@darkbeefstakes, You know, I've seen you around, and I've tried doing the polite thing and not replying, but now this is getting ridiculous.

Did you watch the same film? First off, the 48 frames per second did not cost anymore than a regular ticket.
Secondly, seriously? I mean really? Did you watch the 48 frames per second?

I don't think you did, that, or you've never seen another movie in your life. Go watch The Avengers, or The Bourne Legacy, or Skyfall, or any action film ever created. During fight scenes, it is blurry because the director is trying to show the audience how fast and intense the fight is (They also do this to avoid showing the actors not actually punching each other but that is besides the point). In the Hobbit, the 48 frames per second eliminates that. For example, [SPOILERS], the ending fight scene in the woods atop the mountains, notice how the wargs, when they move by the camera extremely fast, how instead of a blurry commotion, you can see every freaking detail and strand of hair of their fur...[END OF SPOILERS]

You do not get that with every type of film.
Honestly, I don't believe 48 frames per second is the future of cinema, but it is the future of movies that are aiming for fight sequences and movies with breathtaking landscapes, such as LOTR and Star Wars.

Now I'll agree with you on the Video Games to Movies and vice versa comment, that seems to be the trend and I do not know why.
I'm pondering what exactly you meant by your statement of how you can't sit throught this film twice. Never once did it get boring, and if it did to you, you need to go watch TDKR and come back and see if you feel the same way. But I shouldn't have to tell you that considering your stereotypical and ironic avatar.

@LucasMend, I think this is why Jackson has decided to span the book over 3 films. As @Ror mentioned in a previous article, I too, believe that Jackson is somewhat hindered by the book. So with the forthcoming sequels to the The Hobbit, The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again, I feel as if the Dwarves will get fleshed out quite a bit.

Sure, they might get better development in the future, but in this movie they didn't, you give your opinion in each movie by it's own. So in this movie: no development for them.

@darkbeefsticks: I loved the 48 fps. I thought it looked stunning. So I'll 'defend' Jackson all I want thanks. Have your own opinion all you want, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they should think.

It's really good that of the 2225 votes out of 2685 thought that the movie was really good to excellent. That's about 83% of the poll.

@thegambitfreak word!

The worst thing for me was the cinematics. it looked like a BBC show with some scenes, then it looked like an American made for other scenes. If they would have stuck with the standard filming then I think it would have been alot better...

But your guys arguments as to why I was wring with my statement were kind of besides the point. WHich was there is no real reason to see movies in 3d or 48 fps, as both mediums make the film either hurt your head or look "fake". As one of you argued it made the punches have less motion blur... Isn't that bad? We know people aren't actually punching each other in movies, why would we want to film these scenes in a way that draws attention to how fake it really is?

But, i am speaking out of my ass. Im actually looking foward to seeing this movie in 48 fps just to see how it looks.

Plus I have seen tdkr twice, to the guy who told me to go watch it and come back . Not sure why you wanted me too? As watching it twice would not make my experience with the hobbit change. I thoight tdkr was well paced, the second act slowed during banes silly speach ontop a tumbler, but it did not last for more than five minutes. Bruce in the prison (even though i thought those scenes were eiverse enough to not get boring, however if one did find those scenes boring they were no more than maybe fifteen minutes of the whole movie). What I am trying to say is I'm pretty sure tdkr did not try to stretch one moderately sized book into 9 hours of movies. For no other reason thn to grab more cash, and Jackson's fetich for middle earth and drawn out stories (ie. king kong, loveley bones, lotr, that movie with Kate Winslow as a lesbian). And I am sure tdkr did not film itself in some silly medium just to convince people not to watch it online. Nvm, it did. IMAX. As much as IMAX enhances the clarity I still think it is a gimmick, but at least it makes the film look better. As opposed to say 48fps or 3d.

Before u say it,tdkr had a similiar plot, ie destroy world. But avengers did not even bother to give an explanation or come up with a creative way to destroy the world. Aliens? Sure ostensibly bane was just using a bomb, but I have never seen a movie where a bad guy isolates an entire city so he can "torture them" ( this never came across clear and could have been done better but bane did explain that it was his intention during that monologue to Bruce in prison). I mean the avengers goes through like six movies of set up and has a massive selection of villians to choose from (and could have chose from with out explaining their origin or plan since it appears no body really cares about a villians origin or plan since nobody seems to relize or care the aliens were mssing both) all this and the best idea they come up with is evil aliens. I loved all these movie, but peoples arguments for liking and disliking films are so hypocritical. I mean look at Skyfall.Easilly the same or possibly more plot holes and leaps of faith/poor excuses, yet people say it was the best film of the year. ( to list a few just so I don't have to later, why does Bernice not seem worried that silva will kill her for telling bond his secret hiding place, how does bond get on the boat, why was bond not held captive on the boat yet in the next scene they have him held captive, what was the point of that assassins assination from across the buildings when everyone in the room with the man assassinated was in on the murder anyway? How come everything is explained so easily by hacking, how was silva so cunning that he planned on the locations of the train, why did he hesitate so long before shooting at Judy drench (in addition that scene would have been better if he killed drench then) , why would the house keeper who is nothing more than a crazy scotsman stay and defend with bond against trained killers (answered my own queistion he's crazy), how can bond survive being in ice water so long, who are the men working for silva? )