Hey, what is the best IMAX theater in KC? I would like to see the Hobbit there.

Sorry if this is a repost. I haven't read the entire thread. But I thought this was a really nice article on the science of HFR & The Hobbit.

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobb...es-per-second/

I'm going to the movie this afternoon.

At what scene in the movie should i start to beat off?

When Gandalf finds the swords, definitely.

Total fanboy wank session.

thanks

Can't wait to see this on VHS.

I liked it..

Most of the negative press is biased I think, because none of the main characters sans Gandalf are human..

the only thing I wish they would not have done is all the cgi for goblins and orcs..

It is just a notch lower then lotr.. But that is not a bad thing, it is hard/impossible to replicate that in any series...

Saw it this morning. I totally don't get the negative reviews, especially from the geek press. I thought it was great. It got a little slow during the council of the white, but otherwise, it sure didn't feel like it was nearly 3 hours long (unlike Lincoln...). I saw it in 2d 24fps, I'll hopefully be able to see it again HFR. Really zero complaints at all, other than wishing I could watch part 2 now.

I saw the 24fps 2D version so I don't have a response to most of your post. I really enjoyed the movie but they did go a little overboard with the huge, injury-free falls. AFAIC though, it's a minor flaw.

I hear this was an awesome movie.......i will see this.

Still need information on which IMAX theater to watch this film at. I thought I saw people discussing IMAX in KC a few years ago in a thread, but I can't remember which one. IIRC, somebody was saying how there is only 1 true IMAX screen in KC.

I usually go to the massive AMC 30 in Olathe.

****. That's far. Is that the only true IMAX screen or whatever?

I don't live in KC area, but I've been to the Olathe 30 IMAX and the Independence IMAX.

The Olathe one is true IMAX size. The Indpendence one is big, but technically its smaller or LIMAX size.

Actually here's a list..it says the Olathe one is LiMAX as well..it's still pretty big.



http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm

I'll say, the Dwarves and old man Gandalf must have bones made of steel taking a beating like that and still able to fight and such. It was a bit over the top in that aspect. They could have edited out a good thirty minutes of it especially the first part of the movie, i almost fell asleep.

When it finally got going it held your attention the rest of the movie though.

The online theater finder thing said this would be in HFR 3D. Either they don't have the information right or my eyes can't tell the difference between that and the slower 3D. The action was awfully blurry, but the still shots and slower movement were absolutely gorgeous. I want the damn extended Blu-Ray already.

Radagast the Brown was the best part.

I just say it again in IMAX, after seeing it in a normal 2D before. It was so much more blurry, and just a little too over the top. It was fine, unless there much or sudden movement.

The AMC 20 in Independence has IMAX.

Jesus Christ.

If it satisfied Keg, fully, then I feel entirely justified in the amount of Tolkien jizz I've expended in the last 4 days.

Goddamn movie made me buy 3 months subscription to LOTRO.

It's based on a children's adventure book. It's basically full of cartoon violence.

It's beautiful.

This is why you have depression. Something fun and awesome comes along to be enjoyed and savored and you cant find the joy in it. Too bad.

Saw the movie in 3d and it was easily the most amazing eye candy I'd ever seen. Looking forward to seeing again and can't wait for part 2. Bravo Pj, bravo.

Saw it tonight in Imax 3D 48FPS. A very good movie, found myself hooked until the end.

Great Stuff:
The game of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum.
The Cinematography was gorgeous.
The returning cast from LOTR and the call backs to it... err call forwards.

Bad Stuff:
48 FPS, holy shit it made all the sequences where they weren't just standing around talking, IE motion of anykind, seems like they hit the first fast forward button on the remote. All the action scenes looked faster than normal and that sucks because it was harder to pay attention to all the essentially good scenes. I don't know why he decided to do it, I honestly have no idea, but I'll be seeing the others in normal fps. The annoying combination of 3D glasses and the FPS was just annoying and made the movie less enjoyable.
The dwarves never dying. The running scenes alone through the goblin area were littered with so many times a dwarf or two should've died they didn't.
The first 45 minutes of the movie. You could've cut the whole part where the dwarves were bouncing dishes off their asses and the movie would've been better imo.

Saw it last night in 2d -- loved it. Fantastic movie and well worth the wait.

Only complaint.... THERE WAS NO MAN OF STEEL TRAILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****!!!

Ive noticed in my area its only available at 48FPS in 3D. I wish they had a 2D 48FPS showing. I cant stand 3D.

And no 9 minutes of star trek into darkness. Back to see it in IMAX i go.

Pacific Rim trailer looked amazing on the big screen.

Agreed. I really enjoyed the movie itself, but I did not like the HFR. It really took away the cinematic feel and there were several scenes that felt like they were sped up. And it also made the CGI parts that much more obvious.

But I am glad that I saw in HFR so that now I know to expect next time.

Saw it. Loved it. Really loved it.

Saw it in 2D. Was surprised to find some fast motion scenes still looked a little blurred. They had both a Man of Steel trailer and a Star Trek trailer. But it wasn't the 9 minute Trek trailer that was evidently shown in IMAX.

Pluses:
Bilbo was played well.
They nailed the dwarves. Well done with that.
Radagast was hilarious. Down to the creepy mold stuff growing on his head. Gandalf giving him a toke of smoke to calm him down.. LOL. Shroom abuser..
Excellent job mixing traditional Hobbit book with explanatory back stories from Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.
Weapons were awesome.
Thorin. Nicely done showing his asshole side converting to less asshole side.

Negatives:
Goblin King scenes. Rushed, poorly explained. Silly scenes. They either needed to expand that greatly, or completely cut it out.
3 Trolls. Was disappointed with how they handled that. Would've liked to see something closer to the book.
More Smaug...

I think that was actually bird shit from the two birds living in the nest under his hat.

Yes this is right.

Movie was good, but was struggling to stay awake a lot of the time so it was hard to fully enjoy~

Yep.

Saw it in 3d (IMAX). It was well worth the extra bucks. It really looked great.

I didn't have a problem with much of any of it. On the more Smaug, you saying you WANTED more Smaug? I was actually discussing this with my buddy before the movie and we damn well knew we'd only get a glimpse of parts of him. No way they reveal that this movie. That's for later. Standard movie making procedure 101.

They should also READ the Hobbit, if they're in that 9-12 or so age range (or even older).

Lord of the Rings is, ummm, "kinda worth watching" in a "the sun is kinda hot" and "Natalie Portman is kinda attractive" sort of way. :D

The Hobbit is the story of how a Hobbit got pulled into an adventure to help some Dwarves recover their lost homeland, and as a side note finds a magical ring along the way. The book is written for kids (pre-teen to early teen). The Lord of the Rings is much more somber, and more seriously written. It reveals what the ring that Bilbo found really is and a broader story around it. Since you don't actually seem to know (a fact that I really can't wrap my brain around), I won't say more.

Be advised that the Lord of the Rings movies are somewhat more graphic/disturbing than anything in the Hobbit. If your daughter could barely handle the Hobbit, I'm not sure she should be seeing Uruk-hai and Nazgul just yet.

Did you read the ****ing book? Did you bitch about the dwarves not dying then as well?

For me, not dying wasn't a problem, but how they didn't die was a little troublesome. It's like someone decided that if an exciting action sequence is good, an over-the-top, jarringly-anti-realistic action sequence must be better. I realize this is a fantasy movie with magic and mythical creatures and that it requires a fundamental suspension of disbelief from the get go, but it just seemed a little unnecessary to me. Not a major problem at all, but just something I think could have been better.

Just my opinion but i think you are touching upon one of my major beefs with action films today. Too much CGI and over the top action scenes. It looks fake and enables filmakers to have characters defy laws of gravity. Requires too much suspension of disbelief. Jackson is becoming notorious for it. King Kong was filled with scenes like this, but at least people died and got injured.

Not trying to slam Jackson, still enjoy his films for the most part.

You can also blame Lucas for that. The action in the Only Three Real Films was specific and plotted and empty of distraction (e.g. attack on the Death Star in "New Hope", attack of the AT-ATs on Hoth in "Empire", speederbike forest chase in "Return"). Then he made the Three Abominations--which he said he had waited "for technology to catch up to his 'vision' of the films". And apparently his "vision" includes massive CGI battles of both the hand-to-hand and spacecraft variety where you can't focus on one frickin' thing happening.

No I didn't read the books. Any of them, but I have a hard time seeing how that has anything to do with a criticism of the film. If that was exactly how the books had it going then yes, I think that a handful of dwarves that can beat any obstacle without dying is a little far fetched. It's a minor complaint, nothing more and nothing less. The only thing I really "bitched" about was the frame rate. That was the only thing I didn't like about the movie. But I didn't honestly see how a bridge falling down a large cave with 13 people on it wouldn't shatter but instead stay together while everything around it falls to pieces. I can say that I was entertained but thinking about it afterwards it does raise a question or two.

Saw it last night in 3D, and this was the second film I've seen in 2 weeks where the 3D didn't bug the crap outta me. It's very good for giving shots depth and exploring more of the scope of what's on screen (that New Zealand countryside sure looks gorgeous).

As a movie, it's trying too hard. There's a ton of superfluous stuff which was sold as 'we're expanding the story based on other source material'. Shut up. The Hobbit works because it's a straightforward classic adventure tale. Every other scene seemed to contain a reference to something that will happen in Lord of the Rings. Which is great, except we've already seen Lord of the Rings. We're not going to the Hobbit to have the table set for movies we watched ten years ago and really enjoyed. The mere appearance of Frodo should be all the hinting we need about the events to come. Instead, we get a reminder every five minutes for the next three hours.

Next, Radagast. Holy Christ. There's a reason he's mentioned for all of a paragraph in the Hobbit/LOTR books. Because he's boring and adds nothing to the plot. And he's whipping around on a sled pulled by rabbits in a scene that adds nothing, wasn't in the book, and is utterly tensionless. **** off.

There's also a general overall lack of tone; the film tries to be too serious in parts, and then other times goes for nonsense (goblin king, looking at you...). BTW what was the point of that scene? And for that matter, the pale orc? Because the dude says "Send word we have Thorin' and the next scene, Gandalf shows up out of nowhere. Was the plan for them to just sit there for two days until the Orc showed up? Because the Dwarves didn't appear to be the greatest at figuring out a plan of escape. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single moment of peril which isn't resolved by the actions of Gandalf or Bilbo.

My only conclusion about the pale orc is that he is there to give Thorin something to do. To give his character some conflict. But when your third (Or second, depending) lead needs to have a manufactured conflict to keep him interesting, that's a sign.

We have two more movies coming over the next two years. That's ridiculous. I understand splitting up the movie so you can tell a more complete story and so you can make another billion dollars. Three is over-indulgent. Someone needed to tell Peter Jackson 'no' to a few things. Conflict breeds great film-making.

Remember how both the theatrical and extended addition featured no trace of Tom Bombadil because he's a stupid useless asshole character who could save everyone but just doesn't feel like leaving his bitch for a week? The Hobbit has done the opposite. Let's put in EVERYTHING WE CAN, regardless of whether or not it helps the story or makes the movie better. Because Tolkien was a genius, and certainly didn't write anything that wasn't beyond reproach or didn't need to be filmed.

On the positive side... Very pretty film. Bilbo is very well-acted, and Riddles in the Dark, the one scene they had to ace, is pretty much perfect.

Could've been a lot better, it's trying way too hard.

Oh, and nice to see that Peter Jackson saw Clerks 2 and raised Kevin Smith walking mountains. Which also weren't in the Hobbit.

Can I see it in IMAX without the high frame rate?

Yes (at least in Massachusetts. Your local mileage may vary. :D )

Okay I just wanted to be sure. I saw an IMAX with AMC one that didn't specifically say it had the high frame rate but I wasn't sure if it would have to say that or not.

I could've done without the "great slide", myself, to be honest.

FWIW, here at least HFR was only available in 3D, but not in IMAX.

Agreed. It's endemic to movies now, and it's annoying. I really hate it when I'm sitting there thinking "the laws of physics say 'NO' to this". I can't help myself, when filmmakers get over the top carried away, it pulls me out of the movie and back into reality by making my brain go "uhhh...no".

*sigh*

Just saw it. Very well done. IIRC wasn't there a lot more lore in that book than the LOTR books? I would very much like to see that done but it looks like they decided against that aspect.

This whole post is ****ing bullshit.

Peter Jackson made a great movie that is making Tolkien fans fapjizz the world over.

So **** off.

Amazing that any idiot would not want to see Radagast or Tom Bombadill. I was just playing LOTRO last night and it was so cool seeing Bombadill and watching him save my ass at the end of a quest.

If you don't like those characters, that's your prerogative. Tolkien fanboys love them.

In the end you can bitch about it as much as you like, but seeing the assault on the Necromancer is something Tolkien fans ABSOLUTELY want to behold on a movie screen, so you can just shut up about it.

This is our movie, not yours. Now **** off.

heh.. This made me chuckle..

I think this was actual crucial if you want to consider the dwarves as beings you can relate to. In the novel, they are after gold, that is all. No home, no revenge (although both are mentioned, the focus is their treasure, period). Fighting an old enemy who stole your family and then set up for the ultimate fight against the enemy that stole your home is making them more human (for lack of a better phrase).

If they were doing one movie, you could get away with removing Azog entirely (as he was already dead before the first word of the novel was written). Doing three, you need heroes, not money grubbers.

Amen. Peter Jackson is a Tolkien fan, and he is making movies for Tolkien fans. You can't please everyone, but Jackson has done an incredible job pleasing the fanbase as a whole.

I don't think that is necessarily true, there was the whole back story with thorin, it actually makes for an interesting plot

250 bucks for a map and it doesn't even have Mordor on it?

http://www.hobbitshop.com/product/th...icks&refType=4

:cuss:

http://www.panicposters.com/media/ca...map-poster.jpg

Watched it in 3D tonight. It was quite awesome and I plan on seeing it again this weekend with a buddy.

Wasn't sure about the Sauramon being in this, didn't remember it from the book. Same as talk of Sauron, I liked it as it's obviously preluding to LOTR, but I didn't remember it from the book.

It's all yanked from the appendices of Return of the King.

The Necromancer is Sauron, and it's during this time that he's driven out of Mirkwood.

This is what Gandalf goes to do when he leaves the party at the Lonely Mountain.

Are the appendices included in the book Return of the King? I don't remember and I didn't see them on Amazon to buy. I'm rereading the Hobbit now in anticipation of seeing the movie.

When is that talked about?

I figured, putting two and two together when reading the Hobbit that the Necro was Sauron.

I'm also curious if Sauromon knew what was going on when he is at the meeting with Gandalf at Rivendale.

I don't know if it's in your copy but it's in mine. I have all three LOTR books collected in one volume + appendices. Its under "The Tale of Years."

If you wanna know about it, just read wiki though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauron

I don't think I'm nerd enough to see this....because I will have no ****ing clue about anything that's going on in the movie.

That might make it better, to be honest.

When you know what's gonna happen shit isn't as cool. My excitement for these movies has always been seeing shit I read about realized on the big screen.

Somehow Peter Jackson managed to do it, almost every time, in a way that effected

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ngxfiAw01rq74ka.gif

So I can't imagine what it'd be like for someone who didn't know the next scene.

Yeah, when you knwo whats coming and it still jacks you up, touche.


PS, I really wanna get a ****ing Eagle and ride around Middle earth ****ing shit up. Or a nasgul

I'm a big pussy, but I still get choked up EVERY TIME watching Fellowship of the Ring when Gandalf slips off into the abyss and Frodo screams.

That scene is so perfect.

Don't even get me started on Sam on the slopes of Mt. Doom.

I love the part in ROTK, when Merry saves Pippin. Those two crack my shit up.

And the previews for that movie, were awesome.


The Man of Steel might have the biggest compilation of badass actors ever.

AND THESE!!!!!!
They arrrggg true.

I came so hard after watching this. Gave my lady friend a mountain of a mouthful after this movie. A mouthful in her butthole, I mean.

It was funny i was in the theater when that scene came up i chuckled loudly because i forgot about it. My family and others were glancing at me like WTF? LMAO

Yeah, I liked that too, about 30 levels ago...:)

I was STOKED when I fist got to see the inside of Moria...now that is JIMP worthy! Can't wait to see the bridge at Khazad Dum, and Lothlorien!

I've completely lost my mind.

http://i.imgur.com/c3Or5h.jpg

You get the idea he does from the film.

I might still be playing lotro if my account hadn't been hacked and all my characters completely emptied a year and a half ago. :doh!:

(that actually happened at least once to everyone that I ever played the game with - they all got their stuff back though. i didn't)

The way he acted, I got the idea that he did know that.

F2P?

Gad, how I hated that instance...until I did it solo...

I'm VIP from originally having a lifetime account, so I can play at any time I want. I just don't particularly want to start playing on level 65s with no gear.

What do you guys recommend when seeing this, 2D or 3D?

Well, around here 48 fps is only available in 3D.

I saw it in 24 fps 3D and it didn't bother me.

Saw it in IMAX 3D...it looked amazing and lived up to the hype for me