I saw The Hobbit again this afternoon with friends, keeping a number of the comments here in mind, notably:

-the dwarves trekking across the brown vegetation
-the glorious scenery (of course!)
-dot's idea that having Azog around as a villain (since Smaug won't show up until later) makes a lot of sense (I second the notion that Thorin gets to take care of him later in the movie)
-I'll echo many of jo's comments above regarding her second viewing (Radagast, the incredible falls-without-broken bones in the mountain pass battle scenes, and the domino-falling trees near the end remain nitpicks).

Observations related to the technology involved (as opposed to the movie's plot, characters, etc): My first viewing was in 3D HFR IMAX, a truly spectacular presentation. This time was 'standard' 3D, and, for lack of a better term, despite the 3D it looked 'flatter' than the earlier format (but I'm not sure if that's due to the HFR or the IMAX format). The HFR gave it an extremely crisp appearance (almost distractingly so, at times); this image definitely wasn't as crisp, but was still good (especially for my friends who hadn't seen the HFR version). I'm curious as to how it looks in 2D.

I'm curious as to how it looks in 2D.

A bit, well, bland. The colors still show nicely, but the image is a lot less sharp and the long, traveling shots often go more out of focus. It made my dad dizzy when he watched it, which is odd for him. All of the panning shots of the scenery and such lost a lot of their effect in 2D.

I have now seen it three times: once in 2D, once in IMAX 3D, and once in IMAX 3D HFR. If you can watch it in 3D HFR do so. It's really obvious that that's what it was shot in. Sometimes the image looks too crisp, but in the slower film rates it goes out of focus more often.

Some observations after seeing it a third time (what a nerd I am!):

I still get goose bumps every time I hear the Dwarves sing.

I think I understand where they were going with Radagast. Because audiences unfamiliar with ME history will not have heard of Radagast before, they needed to give Sauruman an obvious reason for not taking Radagast at his word. By making Radagast like that, the audience can consider Sauruman's argument but still side with Gandalf without knowing the entire history of the White Council and the Second Age. I still wish they had toned down his apparent craziness though.

The Stone Giant sequence, while a nice nod to the book, didn't have to be that dramatic.

Riddles in the Dark and the scene where Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum are still my absolute favorites.

The Prologue still feels a bit overly-long. However, if they tie it in with the last film I shan't mind. Bilbo does mention Lobelia stealing the spoons; perhaps we'll actually get to see that happen?

Just took a look at the boxoffice and the Hobbit is doing pretty good, except for Japan. It's really underperforming there. It's only at 15 million $ after 3 weeks (in comparison The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader made 30 million total and had a twice as big opening weekend). I'm going to watch it next week, now the theathres are not as crowded anymore.

It is top since release in australia, I am off to see it again on monday since my friend really wants to see it.

I loved the movie; I quite enjoyed the additional content pulled from the appendices. I can’t wait for the next movie! I thought they did a good job blending the lighter tone of the Hobbit book, with the darker tone of the Lord of the Rings. Thorin is probably my favorite character; I love what they’ve done with him. He is a little different from the book version, but I quite like what they’ve done. I can’t wait to see Beorn and of course Smaug! I am Very curious to see what they are going to do with Azog.

I went and saw the movie again this past Sunday in 2D and it looked really good. Saw some things I had missed the first time (first 25-30 minutes) in 3D which were visually impressive.

Overall I still think of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a pretty good movie that is technically excellent. Acting was good and the direction of the "adaptation" was very good as well.

On the down side, my opinion that Peter Jackson went overboard on some of the action sequences was reinforced. Especially in the Goblin cave and a bit during the "forest fire" scene. (The Eagles still looked good though.)

Here is hoping part two will improve on the first, which was pretty good as a movie but not the greatest adaptation ever. (IMHO.)

I saw this movie with my parents, brother and sister. I really liked the acting,visual effects, and the music in it. My favorite song in it is "Misty Mountains"

I viewed this movie again this evening, for the first time since it was in the cinema. Several people in our group hadn't seen it before.

I was able to enjoy the good parts more and (for the most part) more easily disregard the disappointing parts (especially Radagast and the action under the mountain). Just about all of the first 90 minutes or so, despite some changes, really are quite good.

My friends also liked it, on the whole, though several of them openly laughed at some of the roller-coaster type action under the mountain.

There were parts of the movie I loved, but I can't say I liked the movie overall.

What did I love? Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Perfect casting there. Also, the Riddles in the Dark scene was so much better than I ever imagined it would be.

The rest, for me, was mediocre at best. And sometimes I thought it was downright bad.

I think the digital look hurt it overall. It definitely makes it look more like a video game than real life. And when I'm in Middle Earth, I want to feel like I'm in Middle Earth. Not a computerized land.

A lot of the humor was cheesy, and sometimes unnecessarily crude. It caused a lot of facepalm moments for me.

There were a lot of scenes that really seemed to hold a lot of meaning when they were in the book, but fell flat for me in the movie even when they were completely accurate. I'm not sure if it was the context they were placed in, or if the acting wasn't right. But something felt off to me much of the time. For some reason, it seemed to lack the heart which makes the book endearing.

I liked it a lot more than VDT, but I do think it went down a similar path as VDT in the respect that it tried to be for children. Not the lovely child-like aspect that the book had, and which even adults can enjoy quite easily. But childishness. The sort of thing that's aimed specifically at children, and children only.

~Riella

It's been a few months since I last saw it, but I remember a few parts I liked. My favorite part was probably the part with the trolls when Bilbo said that they had parasites. That part was really funny. I also liked the part where Bilbo and Gandalf were talking and Bilbo kept saying "Good morning." I also liked that it included some of the things that happened in the past. I like it much better than I liked the book. The main thing I didn't like was how ugly the goblin king was. I mean, he was just...well, ugly. My favorite dwarfs were Thorin and Kili. Overall, it's one of my favorite movies.

The main thing I didn't like was how ugly the goblin king was. I mean, he was just...well, ugly.

I rather liked the Goblin King, played by Barry Humphreys, precisely because the make-up artists made him so horribly ugly-looking. I couldn't think of a better actor to play the Goblin King in An Unexpected Journey. Barry Humphreys is the sort of actor who really does well with comically gruesome characters, such as you find in yearly pantomimes. One example would be Cinderella's ugly step mother, and another is his own invention, Edna Everidge, the mock 'average' housewife from Mooney Ponds, who likes gladiolis, iced vo-vo's and making fun of everywhere else in Australia as well as elsewhere in the world, whilst calling fellow Melburnians possums. Apparently Queen Elizabeth II of UK made this character an actual Dame, so now the character is called Dame Edna Everidge.

I'm ever so glad that the Goblin King managed not to call either the hobbits or the goblins, possums, which would have really sent me into fits of laughter. But I don't remember seeing the Goblin King in the Hobbit as being at all comical.

It has been a while since I've seen the movie too, but I loved it. Although there were some changes, they made sense in the adaptation sense, and they were more than made up for by the inclusion of scenes I really didn't think they could fit in an adaptation. Seriously, there are no words to express how excited I was for the dish song.

That said, looking at these posts I've been alerted to something I hadn't noticed before. When they explained the burial of The Witch King of Angmar I knew that it was different from the book, I just didn't realize it was also different from the LotR movie too. It pretty much throws out everything we know about the Ringwraiths, unless people didn't realize that he was a Nazgul in the same way they don't know the necromancer is Sauron.

I can only hope The Desolation of Smaug clears this up.

Having watched the movie again yesterday, Dinode, I think that people might very well think that "people didn't realize that he was a Nazgul in the same way they don't know the necromancer is Sauron". Sauron, after all, could waken a sleeping Nazgul, couldn't he? And yes, that is what appeared to happen in the LOTR indexes.

The second time around of watching this movie was interesting. I noticed Radagast's rabbits more. And actually I liked the idea of rabbits being useful creatures, apart from Akubra hats and rabbit pie, that is to say.

Does anyone know where the Desolation of Smaug finishes? Or what the third part of the Hobbit starts and ends?

I haven't seen anything to indicate where the break between the second and the third part of the movies will be.

I enjoyed the movie, although there are sections I'm less happy about. I've seen it three times in the theatre, and I've bought the DVD, but not watched it yet.

After three viewings, I've found that I've seen enough scenes of people almost falling down from swaying rocks/bridges/ropes - been there done that, I don't need another, thank you very much.

But there were scenes I loved. The Good morning scene between Gandalf and Bilbo - almost (or perhaps completely) verbatim from the book, and very well played. And the Riddles in the Dark between Bilbo and Gollum - brilliant. Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman both perform great acting.

Martin Freeman gives us a better Bilbo than the Frodo we were given in the LotR - probably because he has a lot more experience as an actor than Elijah Wood had at the time. But also because he was given more scope for acting - more time to develop a scene, as I especially noticed in the Good morning scene.

So although there are things I hope would be done differently in the next part, I still look very much forward to it.

After three viewings, I've found that I've seen enough scenes of people almost falling down from swaying rocks/bridges/ropes - been there done that, I don't need another, thank you very much.

Quite so, I agree that in the LOTR films it was spectacular viewing but is getting a bit hackneyed, isn't it? You find so many over the top (or is it under the bottom?) obstacle courses in everything from Indiana Jones to Pirates of the Caribbean films. Why make villainous antagonists slipshod builders as well as evil?

About the Witch King of Angmar, do you think he really died and was buried deep or was this something he staged, himself, at the point he finally realised he was getting a bit stretched and less visible to his men, without his armour?