Release date of The Hobbit

[Lalwendë]

Here.

The world premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will take place in New Zealand on 28 November.

The screening at Wellington's Embassy Theatre will take place two weeks ahead of the film's release on 14 December.

Get the babysitter booked!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Get the babysitter booked!

Fly the little ones to me, and I'll do it for $25.00 an hour.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Hopefully it will be available in theaters in NON-3d. Otherwise I
won't see it. I saw Avatar in 3d and got a headache before it
was over.

[Galadriel55]

I was hoping that it would be out by the time my birthday comes about, but I guess I'll just have to have a late birthday party.

[Lalwendë]

I don't want to see it in 3D either. Not until they develop the system so you don't need a pair of cardboard specs like you'd get free with a packet of Shreddies in 1979

[jallanite]

In my experience at a 3D film one gets a pair of spectacles with plastic frames and plastic lenses much more solid than anything given away free with Shreddies at any time.

Some people don’t like 3D films. Fair enough. But one ought to say honestly why one doesn’t like them rather than confuse matters with a comparison that isn’t true.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Some people don’t like 3D films. Fair enough. But one ought to say honestly why one doesn’t like them rather than confuse matters with a comparison that isn’t true.

Personally, I don't like 3D because it seems like a trendy techno way to draw viewers to a film that can't stand on its own merits.

If TH is really such a good flick, it ought to be able to make it on the strength of the story and characterizations.

[Boromir88]

I literally can't watch 3D, my eyes and brain don't know what to do and it makes me headachy nauseous.

So, I won't watch it in 3D, but don't see that as a reason to be against it. If that's what entertains people about movies, great, have fun with it.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Personally, I don't like 3D because it seems like a trendy techno way to draw viewers to a film that can't stand on its own merits.

If TH is really such a good flick, it ought to be able to make it on the strength of the story and characterizations.

In the 50s it was commonly said that the best films were in black-and-white. That was, of course, an exaggeration. Looking back it is clear that some films in black-and-white were better than some films in colour, and some were not. But, on the whole, colour did enhance the cinematic experience sufficiently that a black-and-white film had to be very much better to compete.

Earlier the same was said about sound films compared to silent films.

Most really popular 3D films are released both in standard flat format and in 3D to cater to both to those who honestly feel that 3D enhances sufficiently for the extra money and those who do not. Films that can’t stand on their own merits die quickly in both flat and 3D format, for example the very expensive John Carter.

Personally, I feel that when I don’t like a film, one format or the other does not make a difference.

One film where I feel that 3D very much enhanced the cinematic experience was the film Hugo.

To take another example of new technology, the first single-projector, wide-screen film was Around the World in 80 Days, released in 1956, which was both a popular and a critical success.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

In the 50s it was commonly said that the best films were in black-and-white. That was, of course, an exaggeration. Looking back it is clear that some films in black-and-white were better than some films in colour, and some were not. But, on the whole, colour did enhance the cinematic experience sufficiently that a black-and-white film had to be very much better to compete.

Earlier the same was said about sound films compared to silent films.

Most really popular 3D films are released both in standard flat format and in 3D to cater to both to those who honestly feel that 3D enhances sufficiently for the extra money and those who do not. Films that can’t stand on their own merits die quickly in both flat and 3D format, for example the very expensive John Carter.

Personally, I feel that when I don’t like a film, one format or the other does not make a difference.

The use of color over b/w, or talkies v. silents is a different issue altogether, and usually concerned critical arguments over aesthetics. Talkies and color films actually gained favor relatively overnight and were quite popular with audiences. However, The 3-D technology as it is currently is an imposition on people who wear glasses, or have eye-related issues; ergo, not acceptable to a large number of people.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

I saw Avatar in 3d and got a headache before it was over.

Try watching Avatar in 2D...3D was the only thing that made it watchable.

Looks like the wife and me will be having another date night in December.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

However, The 3-D technology as it is currently is an imposition on people who wear glasses, or have eye-related issues; ergo, not acceptable to a large number of people.

I always wear glasses as I am quite near-sighted without them. But I have no problem whatsoever with slipping the 3D glasses currently provided over my regular glasses. They fit very comfortably. They are not an imposition at all for me.

I am aware that some people do find 3D pictures visually annoying. I am also aware that a smaller group of people don’t feel that the increased price is worth it. I myself like 3D mostly, but not so much that I feel horribly put out if I chance at a particular time to wander into a theatre and find that only a flat version of a picture I wish to watch is available at that time. I usually then watch the flat version quite happily.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I am aware that some people do find 3D pictures visually annoying. I am also aware that a smaller group of people don’t feel that the increased price is worth it. I myself like 3D mostly, but not so much that I feel horribly put out if I chance at a particular time to wander into a theatre and find that only a flat version of a picture I wish to watch is available at that time. I usually then watch the flat version quite happily.

Agreed. I'll watch the Hobbit in 2D or 3D, if it's the Hobbit filmed in some format. When it's a 3D movie that...oh...just happens to be the Hobbit, then I'm less interested.