Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniscientCause 
I like the move it self...i went on like a 3 year quest to watch this movie...I saw a snippet of it when it came out forgot what it was a few years latter then made like it like a month long search to find it.
Saw the hobbit in 3d which im very against but it was the only way to see it in the 48fps. It looked fast forwarded at times and the voicing was out of sync...movie itself was good but 48fps was dumb...2d all day every day>3d crap
I like the move it self...i went on like a 3 year quest to watch this movie...I saw a snippet of it when it came out forgot what it was a few years latter then made like it like a month long search to find it.
Saw the hobbit in 3d which im very against but it was the only way to see it in the 48fps. It looked fast forwarded at times and the voicing was out of sync...movie itself was good but 48fps was dumb...2d all day every day>3d crap
Definitely agree, 3D wasn't good and the 48 fps just make it look cheap. I wonder if it looks better seeing it in 24 fps. Movie wasn't nearly good enough to want to see it again. Felt like a lot of filler and definitely more kid oriented than Lord of the Rings (which isn't too surprising considering the books). Honestly though I think kids would get bored with the filler material. Based on this alone I don't see any reason why this should have been broken into 3 movies. I did like Martin Freeman and the scenes with him and Gollum were definitely one of the highlights.
