http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOM13UyZ0A

Saw this in IMAX 3D last night. Granted, I'm a huge fantasy nerd, but I was blown away and had a giant smile on my face the whole time. I didn't have any problem with the 48fps people seem to be whining about and felt the movie was visually breathtaking , it was really a very beautiful movie. Every location was awesome, from Bag End to Erebor (for any WoW nerds out there, it kinda felt like you were taking a griffin back to Ironforge) to the Last Homely House of Elrond. Goblin-Town was insane.

Plenty of action, some epic battle scenes (would easily be worth seeing twice just to try to take in everything that's going on during some of them) and even a little bit of comedy. Complaints that it has a different feel than LotR are unfounded I think as the book isn't as dark to begin with. I wasn't sure how Peter Jackson would be able to stretch it into 3 movies but after what I've seen so far, bring it on.

Going to see it this week. Can't wait. I'm right up there those with the biggest fantasy nerds (yes I'm a WOW geek as well). The Hobbit was my favorite book to read during grade school. So I'm looking forward to this even more than I was with LotR.

Of course, some site or blogger said it wasn't as exciting as the LOtR. Really? Um, it's a totally different story and it's in 2 parts at that. It's not a trilogy and widespread story of all of Middle Earth against Sauron. It's a story of one hobbit's journey. I read the book about 3 years ago and I breezed through it. I could picture every little detail and how it would look when Peter Jackson finally put it to film. Other than this turd blogger, I can't wait to see the movie and I like what I'm hearing as far as fans of the series.

Any of you guys read The Silmarillion? Interesting if you're down with the history of Middle Earth...

I'm about halfway through The Silmarillion. Love the back stories and think we'll see a lot of things pulled from this as Jackson bridges everything to LOTR in the next two movies.

It would really be awesome... kinda like a 2012 (the movie) theme...to see Middle Earth being swallowed and re shaped by the great sea. I researched the difference between the maps provided in all the books and from the first age to the third age, the only landmark that is virtually the same is the Misty Mountains.

I enjoyed it. It was very long and if you're not into these kind of movies it would get really boring. But overall I though it was excellent. :)

I enjoyed it. It was very long and if you're not into these kind of movies it would get really boring. But overall I though it was excellent. :)

I suspect that if someone isn't into that kind of movie they won't have to worry about getting bored because they won't go anyway.

That's why they make movies like Lincoln. =)

I loved the original series, but this one just didn't do it for me. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't really that good either. I really don't think this story needed to be dragged out into 3 movies, and it shows with just how much padding was added to the movie. Yet despite the padding, they still didn't do a great job of giving us a reason to care about the members of Thorin's band, or even do much to distinguish them. Unlike Fellowship of the Ring, it just didn't like the story accomplished enough for a single movie, they introduced three main plot threads and

This is probably the low point in the Jackson series for me. It wasn't a horrible movie, but it doesn't hold to the high standards his previous movies had. Hopefully the other two do more, but this one didn't get it off to a great start.

I loved the original series, but this one just didn't do it for me. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't really that good either. I really don't think this story needed to be dragged out into 3 movies, and it shows with just how much padding was added to the movie. Yet despite the padding, they still didn't do a great job of giving us a reason to care about the members of Thorin's band, or even do much to distinguish them. Unlike Fellowship of the Ring, it just didn't like the story accomplished enough for a single movie, they introduced three main plot threads and

This is probably the low point in the Jackson series for me. It wasn't a horrible movie, but it doesn't hold to the high standards his previous movies had. Hopefully the other two do more, but this one didn't get it off to a great start.

Are you a fan of the book? Does it follow the book very closely? I'm doing a quick re-read in preparation for seeing the movie.

Are you a fan of the book? Does it follow the book very closely? I'm doing a quick re-read in preparation for seeing the movie.

It's been a long time since I read the book, but I did like it when I did. Of what I do remember, the book could have been told in one 3-hour-movie, maybe 2 if you were dead set on cutting nothing. Jackson split it into 3 movies though.

Basically, they added a lot. Things that weren't elaborated on in the book are shown in great detail in the movie. Characters that get slight mentions get rather long, extended scenes devoted to them. So while the LotR trilogy cut out things to make the books translate better into movies, the Hobbit trilogy adds a bunch of stuff to the movies to drag them out into three, which in my mind, makes it flow worse than the book did.

I expect the other movies to get a lot more added to them to pad out the adventure and actually make Bilbo and the dwarves a part of events they weren't a part of in the book.

Thanks, I will set my expectations accordingly.

Judging from the previews I've seen, there were some things added (I don't recall Radagast the Brown? riding in a sleigh pulled by giant rabbits, for example). Its not a deal breaker for me though. If they can leave out the entire part about Tom Bombadil in TLOTR, I can get over a little artistic license with this one too.

I, for some reason, thought that the story was just An Unexpected Journey and then There and Back Again. I did not know of this third movie (part 2). Does kinda seem like a knock down drag out considering this is only one book. Jackson's just making sure he gets paid for the next three years. They probably have already wrapped up on the majority of the shooting and the rest of the time will be finishing touches on CG/special effects and editing.

I thought it was only going to be two movies as well.

Saw this in IMAX 3D last night. Granted, I'm a huge fantasy nerd, but I was blown away and had a giant smile on my face the whole time. I didn't have any problem with the 48fps people seem to be whining about and felt the movie was visually breathtaking , it was really a very beautiful movie. Every location was awesome, from Bag End to Erebor (for any WoW nerds out there, it kinda felt like you were taking a griffin back to Ironforge) to the Last Homely House of Elrond. Goblin-Town was insane.

Plenty of action, some epic battle scenes (would easily be worth seeing twice just to try to take in everything that's going on during some of them) and even a little bit of comedy. Complaints that it has a different feel than LotR are unfounded I think as the book isn't as dark to begin with. I wasn't sure how Peter Jackson would be able to stretch it into 3 movies but after what I've seen so far, bring it on.

Just out of curiosity, do you live in OKC or did you see the movie somewhere else? Both the AMC and Warren
IMAX were only showing the movie in regular 3D. The HFR 3D version was on a different screen.

While the picture quality was great, I found the HFR to be extremely distracting. It felt like someone kept hitting the fast forward button every few seconds. It was most noticeable on the slower scenes.

The actual movie itself is good, but probably 30 minutes too long. I personally can't see a good reason (except for money!) to extend this movie to 3 parts, but I'm sure they'll all be good.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I fear a three part Hobbit package might suffer from the same dragging some scenes out waaaaaay beyond useful, e.g., the second and third Matrix films, and any Family Guy toon with a Peter/Chicken fight.

Yeah, it was at the Warren. That's what I get for just assuming the Imax would run the newer tech I guess. Ugh, there are way too many versions of this movie. Now I want to see the 48fps to compare.

Yeah, it was at the Warren. That's what I get for just assuming the Imax would run the newer tech I guess. Ugh, there are way too many versions of this movie. Now I want to see the 48fps to compare.

Yeah I agree. The only way I knew I was getting the 48FPS version was buying tickets online. I'm not sure why the Warren didn't have the IMAX 48fps.

If you see it again in 48fps, let me know what you think. It seems to be a love/hate thing among everyone so far.

I found the 48 FPS to be a bit jarring during some scenes. It was almost too smooth.

It was great for the action scenes, though.

I suspect that if someone isn't into that kind of movie they won't have to worry about getting bored because they won't go anyway.Yeah, but I meant if you are going for someone else.

Messed this post up beyond repair. If someone could just delete this that would great. :)

I hope to be proven wrong, but I fear a three part Hobbit package might suffer from the same dragging some scenes out waaaaaay beyond useful, e.g., the second and third Matrix films, and any Family Guy toon with a Peter/Chicken fight.They could make their own miniature series from those. lol

I saw the 48FPS version the other night at the Warren. I thought it was the most visually stunning movie I have ever seen. With the 3D, it was like sitting in a theater watching a Broadway play.

As far as the movie itself, I wasn't excited about seeing it due to the trailers I had seen and the reviews I had read. After seeing it, I can't wait for the next one.

OK I have to ask... what difference does 48FPS make to a movie? What FPS are movies usually shot at?

Between 24 and 30fps, depending on the format. Some people claim that it makes a movie "too real".
Here's a good overview - Why movies are moving from 24 to 48 fps | ExtremeTech (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128113-why-movies-are-moving-from-24-to-48-fps)

OK I have to ask... what difference does 48FPS make to a movie? What FPS are movies usually shot at?

Movies are typically 24 FPS, I believe.

As for the difference, everything was smoother. I have a hard time explaining it, but I guess it was almost like watching actors on a stage vs. actors in a movie. I'm tempted to go watch in 2D/24FPS to compare.

OK I have to ask... what difference does 48FPS make to a movie? What FPS are movies usually shot at?

Normally they're in 24. Basically, think of it like switching from standard definition to high definition, you see fast scenes clear and smoother, but things like makeup and CGI also stand out a lot more.

Good article.... I would think movie makers would want their movies to be almost life like. I wonder if the Blu Ray release will be from the 48 or from 24.

Think the idea actually is to push the trade of the industry away from the 24fps "standard" that was adopted decades ago, but has never really been updated to contemporary technology. I have read some articles, in which I'm only 95% out of my depth (:) ), that suggest movies really shouldn't be shot at less than 60fps.

Actually, the frame rate and exposure aren't necessarily the same. That is, each frame of film may constitute 1/24th of a second of what's seen on screen, but the exposure is actually at least 1/48. Having played with still sports photography in a very limited way, I've learned the hard way how difficult it is to get "frozen" motion (eg during a play) if you're dealing with exposures much slower than, say, 1/125th. If the real exposure on film were only 1/24, any camera or actor motion would create a slurried, messy blur on screen. I think a great many movies are shot at a minimum of 1/48 exposure, with the cinematographer controlling depth of field via aperture to minimize motion blur between frames.

The reality is that the 48fps (and higher) rates are producing more realistic and authentic images, giving directors a great deal more latitude in composing scenes and imagery. There's a bit of a fight in Hollywood over this "more authentic" photography versus the "more traditional" photography born of a mulitple-decades-old mechanical standard. Sounds like Jackson et al are trying to leverage their reputations to drag the rest of their professional world into standards that were possible a long time ago, but no one had the "oomph" to push them.

Lots of Jewish symbolism and biblical inferences among the dwarfs... led by a Moses (Gandorf) with his staff and tricks, etc.

Haven't seen it yet, but I hope the higher resolution isn't like what we've experienced with our BluRay player and our new very high resolution flat screen TV. Spent a few thousand dollars on a TV, only to have to fiddle with the menu and severally downgrade the resolution because everything we watched 'looked fake.' Wasn't just BluRay movies (which often looked like animation from a PS3 game), but also regular HD TV. Shows like CSI, etc. looked very much like they were on a sound stage somewhere. I could have saved alot of money and just bought a large but lower resolution TV. I'd hate to see movies go this direction.

I hate high frame rates. Makes movies look like soap operas. I'd rather movies didn't move to 48fps as the new standard. I have enough trouble suspending my disbelief with CGI as it is. Higher frame rates just make it even more difficult. And I doubt they're gonna spend a kajillion dollars on every movie to make sure every single costume and prosthetic looks as real as possible. Movies will get even more expensive to make and then ticket prices will go up yet again, and then Hollywood will wonder why box office sales are down.

Anyway, enough rambling. I saw the movie in 2D at 24fps. I was pretty disappointed; this story did not need to be dragged out like this. As a result, it has the strange problem of being both boring and overwhelming. Also, for a movie called "The Hobbit", Bilbo isn't on screen nearly enough. I feel like Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield had more screen time than Bilbo did. And Radagast the Brown on his bunny-driven sleigh made me cringe, partly because it's such a ridiculous idea and partly because the CGI on that part was fake-looking. Was adding him in there really necessary?

It also bugged me that they shoehorned in people like Galadriel and Saruman. As if they needed to do that to get people to see the movie. I was gonna see it anyway! Their scenes in Rivendell really didn't add anything to the film. This isn't LOTR; this is The Hobbit. The two books differ quite a bit in content, tone, and themes. These movies shouldn't be trying to copy LOTR.

But that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people disagree with me. *shrug*

Lots of Jewish symbolism and biblical inferences among the dwarfs... led by a Moses (Gandorf) with his staff and tricks, etc.
Really? Aside from the Moses reference, where else do you see this?

Lots of Jewish symbolism and biblical inferences among the dwarfs... led by a Moses (Gandorf) with his staff and tricks, etc.

I could see some references, but I think this is mostly left to some people's interpretations. This isn't Narnia where it is a completely intended to invoke Christianity in the themes.


I hate high frame rates. Makes movies look like soap operas. I'd rather movies didn't move to 48fps as the new standard. I have enough trouble suspending my disbelief with CGI as it is. Higher frame rates just make it even more difficult. And I doubt they're gonna spend a kajillion dollars on every movie to make sure every single costume and prosthetic looks as real as possible. Movies will get even more expensive to make and then ticket prices will go up yet again, and then Hollywood will wonder why box office sales are down.

Anyway, enough rambling. I saw the movie in 2D at 24fps. I was pretty disappointed; this story did not need to be dragged out like this. As a result, it has the strange problem of being both boring and overwhelming. Also, for a movie called "The Hobbit", Bilbo isn't on screen nearly enough. I feel like Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield had more screen time than Bilbo did. And Radagast the Brown on his bunny-driven sleigh made me cringe, partly because it's such a ridiculous idea and partly because the CGI on that part was fake-looking. Was adding him in there really necessary?

It also bugged me that they shoehorned in people like Galadriel and Saruman. As if they needed to do that to get people to see the movie. I was gonna see it anyway! Their scenes in Rivendell really didn't add anything to the film. This isn't LOTR; this is The Hobbit. The two books differ quite a bit in content, tone, and themes. These movies shouldn't be trying to copy LOTR.

But that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people disagree with me. *shrug*

I can understand where you are coming from. I expected a lot of reactions like this from people who expected to see just "The Hobbit". However, it was made clear that they wanted to tie this in with the LOTR trilogy at some point. I can definitely appreciate the effort put in to expand this to a trilogy by utilizing the unpublished work, The Silmarillion, and such in the movie. Many of the added events are from those other books that otherwise would be left untouched when it comes to a movie.

From a total Tolkien geek, I found a few of the inserts odd but at the end I was happy they were there. It helped to expand the universe for those that haven't bothered to read the books and just go to watch the movies.

I have a motion enhancer on my Sony TV that I turn on only for sports, other than that when you have it on things look fake and the tv almost has a 3D looking effect that gives me a headache.

Really? Aside from the Moses reference, where else do you see this?

The Dwarfs (patterned after the Norse Dwarfs ... a lost tribe w/ bushy eyebrows & big noses)
Dwarfs being expert goldsmiths and jewelers
Returning to the Promised Land (the Lonely Mountain)
They spoke a Semitic language
Gandorf using his staff to slice off a piece of mountain to let the sun drown the trolls (parting the Red Sea)

I observed this, then checked to see if I were the only one. Turns out a guy named J.R. Tolkien did also:

The Hobbit

The representation of Dwarves as evil changed dramatically with The Hobbit. Here the Dwarves became occasionally comedic and bumbling, but largely seen as honourable, serious-minded, but still portraying some negative characteristics such as being gold-hungry, overly proud and occasionally officious. Tolkien was now influenced by his own selective reading of medieval texts regarding the Jewish people and their history.[5] The dwarves' characteristics of being dispossessed of their homeland (the Lonely Mountain, their ancestral home, is the goal the exiled Dwarves seek to reclaim), and living among other groups whilst retaining their own culture are all derived from the medieval image of Jews,[5][6] whilst their warlike nature stems from accounts in the Hebrew Bible.[5] Medieval views of Jews also saw them as having a propensity for making well-crafted and beautiful things,[5] a trait shared with Norse dwarves.[4] For The Hobbit almost all dwarf-names are taken from the Dvergatal or "Catalogue of the Dwarves", found in the Poetic Edda.[7][8] However, more than just supplying names, the "Catalogue of the Dwarves" appears to have inspired Tolkien to supply meaning and context to the list of names—that they travelled together, and this in turn became the quest told of in The Hobbit.[9] The Dwarves' written language is represented on maps and in illustrations by Anglo-Saxon Runes. The Dwarven calendar invented for The Hobbit reflects the Jewish calendar in beginning in late autumn.[5] The dwarves taking Bilbo out of his complacent existence has been seen as an eloquent metaphor for the "impoverishment of Western society without Jews."[6]

The Lord of the Rings

When writing The Lord of the Rings Tolkien continued many of the themes he had set up in The Hobbit. When giving Dwarves their own language (Khuzdul) Tolkien decided to create an analogue of a Semitic language influenced by Hebrew phonology. Like medieval Jewish groups, the Dwarves use their own language only amongst themselves, and adopted the languages of those they live amongst for the most part, for example taking public names from the cultures they lived within, whilst keeping their "true-names" and true language a secret.[10] Along with a few words in Khuzdul, Tolkien also developed runes of his own invention (the Cirth), said to have been invented by Elves and later adopted by the Dwarves. Tolkien further underlines the diaspora of the Dwarves with the lost stronghold of the Mines of Moria. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien uses the main dwarf character Gimli to finally reconcile the conflict between Elves and Dwarves through showing great courtesy to Galadriel and forming a deep friendship with Legolas. The Gimli-Legolas relationship has been seen as Tolkien's reply toward "Gentile anti-Semitism and Jewish exclusiveness".[6]

Tolkien also elaborated on Jewish influence on his Dwarves in a letter: "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..."[11]

The Silmarillion

After preparing The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien returned again to the matter of the Silmarillion, in which he gave the Dwarves a creation myth. The most Dwarf-centric story from The Book of Lost Tales, "The Nauglafring", was not redrafted to fit with the later positive portrayal of the dwarves from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, nor other events in the Silmarillion,[12] leading Christopher Tolkien significantly to rewrite it with input from Guy Gavriel Kay in preparation for publication.

The Later Silmarillion and last writings

Sometime before 1969 Tolkien wrote the essay Of Dwarves and Men, in which detailed consideration was given to the Dwarves' use of language, that the names given in the stories were of Northern Mannish origin, and Khuzdul being their own secret tongue and the naming of the Seven Houses of the Dwarves. The essay represents the last of Tolkien's writing regarding the Dwarves and was published in volume 12 of The History of Middle-earth in 1996.

In the last interview before his death, Tolkien, after discussing the nature of Elves, briefly says of his Dwarves: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic."[13]

Interesting. I'd never really thought of the story in that way. :)
You made me want to do some more reading about it. Wikipedia has a nice page on the subject, in case anyone else is interested.
J. R. R. Tolkien's influences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien%27s_influences)

BTW, where did you find that information? Got a link?

Interesting. I'd never really thought of the story in that way. :)
You made me want to do some more reading about it. Wikipedia has a nice page on the subject, in case anyone else is interested.
J. R. R. Tolkien's influences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien%27s_influences)

BTW, where did you find that information? Got a link?

It was a wikipedia link, also. Here: Dwarf Middle-earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_%28Middle-earth%29)

Haven't seen it yet, but I hope the higher resolution isn't like what we've experienced with our BluRay player and our new very high resolution flat screen TV. Spent a few thousand dollars on a TV, only to have to fiddle with the menu and severally downgrade the resolution because everything we watched 'looked fake.' Wasn't just BluRay movies (which often looked like animation from a PS3 game), but also regular HD TV. Shows like CSI, etc. looked very much like they were on a sound stage somewhere. I could have saved alot of money and just bought a large but lower resolution TV. I'd hate to see movies go this direction.


It's a different. The higher frame rate has nothing to do with resolution, but with the amount of still images coming at you per second. Incidentally, the "fake" look is still a concern some people have had with HFR, so you may not like it anyway.

If I remember correctly, Tolkien was an ardent Catholic, was friends with C.S. Lewis for a period, and incorporated Christians themes heavily throughout the books.

I'd say it was more subtle in the themes. Man's triumph over evil with the help of the innate spirituality (although it takes a much different form in the books), the nature of power to corrupt, the desolation of evil, the complete delineation of good and evil (as opposed to modern art which tends to humanize the evil forces), the presence of a higher power that the elves/wizards answer to. You could probably make a hundred other parallels, although many of them would be just as much literary devices as Christian themes.

Compare that to C.S. Lewis, who flat out wrote Jesus into Narnia. Tolkein would have never gone that far.

I'd say it was more subtle in the themes. Man's triumph over evil with the help of the innate spirituality (although it takes a much different form in the books), the nature of power to corrupt, the desolation of evil, the complete delineation of good and evil (as opposed to modern art which tends to humanize the evil forces), the presence of a higher power that the elves/wizards answer to. You could probably make a hundred other parallels, although many of them would be just as much literary devices as Christian themes.

Compare that to C.S. Lewis, who flat out wrote Jesus into Narnia. Tolkein would have never gone that far.

Yeah exactly. The themes are pretty classic morality themes that can be connected to everything. Vast majority of people would never draw the connection unless they were either looking for it or they just immediately connect themes that quickly. Narnia was very much in your face, here it is, and people that never touched the books knew the Christian theme was being pushed.

Whenever writing a fantasy story chances are we are always going to pull from person viewpoints, beliefs, and morals in how our characters act out in various situations. I don't doubt his Catholic background influenced the characters in the books, but it is much more subtle and not "here is a lion...i mean God...i mean a lion."

I saw The Hobbit this afternoon at the Warren IMAX. I liked it for the most part, but the pacing was a little slow at first. The sequence of events and the artistic license with the story didn't throw me off too badly. All in all, it was a great afternoon at the movies with the family and I'm looking forward to getting a better look at Smaug in the next one.

The Warren IMAX was impressive as always.

The Warren IMAX was impressive as always.

It's the best!

I need to go see something there, I've heard a lot of good things about it.

I need to go see something there, I've heard a lot of good things about it.

This. It's great.

And I can't tell you how stinking spoiled rotten I've become by the Warren. My daughter wanted to go see "Wreck it Ralph" for her birthday last night, and the only place I could find was the AMC at Quail Springs. While it was a nice, basic theater, the place wasn't vacuumed, the seats were hard and didn't rock, the row in front of you was knocking your knees, etc. etc., and I realized, "oh, wait, this isn't the Warren."

Mind you, I'm not at all knocking the AMC at QSM. It was perfectly fine and we enjoyed the movie very much. But it just wasn't the Warren. Those guys have returned movie watching into an experience again.

Like I said, spoiled rotten. :) I can hardly wait until the new Trek movie shows up at the Warren IMAX in 4.5 months.

I hate high frame rates. Makes movies look like soap operas. I'd rather movies didn't move to 48fps as the new standard. I have enough trouble suspending my disbelief with CGI as it is. Higher frame rates just make it even more difficult.

Think the higher frame rates are on the way one way or the other. There seems to be quite a push from the directorial end to get away from the older standard.

This. It's great.

And I can't tell you how stinking spoiled rotten I've become by the Warren. My daughter wanted to go see "Wreck it Ralph" for her birthday last night, and the only place I could find was the AMC at Quail Springs. While it was a nice, basic theater, the place wasn't vacuumed, the seats were hard and didn't rock, the row in front of you was knocking your knees, etc. etc., and I realized, "oh, wait, this isn't the Warren."

Mind you, I'm not at all knocking the AMC at QSM. It was perfectly fine and we enjoyed the movie very much. But it just wasn't the Warren. Those guys have returned movie watching into an experience again.

Like I said, spoiled rotten. :) I can hardly wait until the new Trek movie shows up at the Warren IMAX in 4.5 months.

How does the IMAX compare with the balcony seats? We saw the Hobbit in the balcony and really enjoyed it. I'm pretty partial to beer at my seat, though.

How does the IMAX compare with the balcony seats? We saw the Hobbit in the balcony and really enjoyed it. I'm pretty partial to beer at my seat, though.

The IMAX experience wants to be more immersive, while the balcony seats want to provide top-notch, at-your-seat service. I think they're two different beasts, frankly, depending on your preferences. For a date night, the balcony is super nice - the at-your-seat service is great, especially if you order a dinner. If you're wanting the maximum visual experience for the movie, IMAX is the way to go.

A co-worker has relayed that he and his wife splurged on a Director's Lounge experience recently and said it was awesome. While it obviously isn't IMAX, its probably as close to a balcony service+IMAX-kindred immersion as you can get.

SoonerDave, while my daughter and fam were here over Christmas holiday, they took my granddaughter to see Wreck it at the Warren on 12/28 as one of her 5th b-day presents. Sorry you had to end up at QSM.

I need to get up to Moore to see the Hobbit myself.

As far as the "soap opera" effect goes, I must admit I'm (apparently) in a minority.

Many new TV shows are shot and processed digitally from start to finish, and have this same "soap opera" effect of the higher frame rate that old analog tape had, only even more pronounced. Many production companies would then take their original production and "filmify" it to make it look like it was filmed, and in all honesty I *hated* that effect. I *like* the live-to-tape visual effect, and I think the effect in movies is just giving us a more vivid realization of what's on screen. We're obviously starting to hit some eyeball and brain "sensitivity parameters" (for lack of a better term) in how our brains process images, and part of that is a learned behavior over umpteen years of TV and movie watching with existing technology.

I've seen, as an example, National Treasure II on BluRay on a big screen and the effect is incredible, IMHO, because the images are so vivid. There is definitely a dimensional quality to them that is not present on "traditional" film.

Its going to be interesting to see how things in the "bizness" evolve in the coming years to adapt to these varying/evolving tastes.

SoonerDave, while my daughter and fam were here over Christmas holiday, they took my granddaughter to see Wreck it at the Warren on 12/28 as one of her 5th b-day presents. Sorry you had to end up at QSM.

I need to get up to Moore to see the Hobbit myself.

Yeah, there was only one show of Wreck It Ralph at the Warren yesterday, and it was at 11AM, and there just wasn't any way we could work that one out logistically. Wasn't sure what to expect from it, but the more I watched, the more I enjoyed it. I think it was one of the most creative movies I've seen in a long time, and did a masterful job of rolling in hallmarks of the 80's into a story young kids who see PacMan as archaic technology could enjoy as something contemporary and fun. While I'm not a big fan of 3D, I left the theater wishing I'd been able to see it in 3D.

This. It's great.

And I can't tell you how stinking spoiled rotten I've become by the Warren. My daughter wanted to go see "Wreck it Ralph" for her birthday last night, and the only place I could find was the AMC at Quail Springs. While it was a nice, basic theater, the place wasn't vacuumed, the seats were hard and didn't rock, the row in front of you was knocking your knees, etc. etc., and I realized, "oh, wait, this isn't the Warren."

Mind you, I'm not at all knocking the AMC at QSM. It was perfectly fine and we enjoyed the movie very much. But it just wasn't the Warren. Those guys have returned movie watching into an experience again.

Like I said, spoiled rotten. :) I can hardly wait until the new Trek movie shows up at the Warren IMAX in 4.5 months.

I hear ya. I think I've spoiled my kids now. As we were leaving, they said that when the 2nd Hobbit movie comes out, "we HAVE to see it here". I wish they would get a similar "experience-oriented" theater closer to the north side of town. It's hard to justify the 45 minute drive, except for special occasions. I'm a lot closer to QSM, but the IMAX screen there just isn't the same.

Saw it last night at Harkins. Thought it was great, and don't really get why the critics are so ho hum about it.