yes it is. lets say its subjective. the whole art thing is overrated.......a 3D film about or lifelong research/body of work of an artist and creator that has touched many(not millions maybe, but thousands for sure) or a epic tale about dwarfs running around in incredibly beautiful(actually more so without them) landscapes and nature views( there is national geographic and is more convincing and educational) saying nothing. these people are not morons, its obvious that they are ultra professional of course, as a part of an industry, where "mistakes" are not allowed, but there is a very fine line between art and craft. which again is subjective. and these kind of productions kill anything else around creating new visions of what is cool, right, and moving the "market of images" in the most superficial plate possible...for millions of people. and (ab)using technologies without saying nothing is all too often theses days...

@luxis Lol --- I totally get your point...I am a good film treasure hunter myself and often think productions like this swallow up the real gems..the really good stories..... but still my inner 12yr old is just so damn exited to see this one that I find this inner struggle to be futile.

On another side note....

Also I noticed they used allot of "sets" for the woods etc....this I take issue with, fake woods even creepy ones still look fake granted the controll factor...but Its damn shame if you ask me.

Yes, technically superb - but no heart and soul for me. Even reading the books and seeing the cartoons as a kid, and playing D&D. I guess there is a limit for my fanboism. But my criticism especially for the previous trilogy was that the damn things were too long - I remember sitting through the Return Of The King, and it was going on at least 45-60 minutes longer than it should.

Btw, guys who watched Warner preview say that it is quite far from original book.

I personally loved these books as kid and also the Sword of Shannara series, which I'm surprised was never even made into an animated film at least. I'm the type of person who can watch a movie I love over and over, but I find myself hesitant about putting in LOTR movies because they drag on and on too much...what might be even more entertaining than the movie is the whole 24fps vs 48fps debate.

@brianluce

I heard same thing from other sources. TV like footage.
People are now so accustomed to this 24p thing that they do not really like 50p or 60p.

Btw, to expirience almost same thing all you need is good modern 3D TV.
At least mine allow to turn frame interpolation for 3D also. It won't make frames as sharp as original 48p footage, but it brings the feeling :-)

shame that 48fps sounds like a step backwards, is that likely to be due to faster shutter speeds and less motion blur ?

Im guessing the reason for 48p was to reduce the tearing or blur that you get from current 3d films. Worse in darker scenes...unfortunately from reading the opinions this seems to be a failure. All I know is after watching the trailer for Hobbit on my HD tv it looked like a tv movie...something was off visually. Too clean. Especially in comparison to LOTR.

Jackson used to be my hero (He grafted his ass to get where he is) but the guy clearly has gone the way of Lucas...and dare I say.. Spielberg!

Too much has become about 3D and throwing money into it. To me it is a gimmick to try desperately to get people in the cinema when really its the overpriced ticket sales,endless piss poor remakes and 20-25 minutes of adverts before the damn film starts that's killing it!

If a films good or advertised well people will go see it regardless of it being 3D or not.

John Carter...3D film. advertised poorly. Biggest bomb yet. Its 3D therefore must rake in the cash!

I'm looking forward to Prometheus...I am though unhappy about it being shown ONLY in 3D in my local cinema. I don't enjoy straining my eyes to enjoy a film thanks.

As for fake woods in films. Ridley scotts film Legend is a great example of how to do it right.

As for some of you not liking the Hobbit films or general fantasy films as entertainment.

Cmon! Get your head out of your ass. If you cant go into a film and escape the crap in the world then there's no hope for you.

Id rather see something that took a lot of creative effort mentally and physically to put on the screen than a doc about Penguins,food,health system or how a cunt got into power.

VK Ive got to say it you got bizarre film taste!

You bash the Hobbit movie but like that god awful shitty St Trinians remake! (which was very likely not made by real guys, who are hard working, inventing something, creating something).

There be shallow entertainment for the brainless masses just there!

But hey each to their own! ;-)

48FPS vs 24FPS ...as far as 48fps is concerned....48fps...should be the standard frame rate for modern digital cinema THEATRICAL productions---(In my professional opinion)
Why you ask?
Blasphemy you say!!!
But No Surrender we all love choppy 24fps digital footage you say!!!
Our footage will look like video at 48 you cry out in a fit of furious anger!!!!!!
Simple-- the more images to hit your eyeballs in a second, the smoother the image will look. The film look comes from proper lighting technique, camera work, color work, editing technique ....BARELY is it from 24fps as you have been led to believe since the Dvx100 came out...I say "barely" because, yes our brains are slightly tuned into this frame rate since its been shoved down our film watching throats all of our lives...however 24fps is an ANTIQUATED standard based on old tech and cost efficency...
I for one will be avoiding in the future if I can.

Oh and I too I'm totally looking forward to Prometheus.... It just looks dope.

Spielberg never lost his edge. Lucas did. Modern obsession - Replacing depth in story with bigger numbers

@jrd You could argue old films hand cranked at 15/18fps are better because they have an artistic artisan feel or that 29.97 camcorder videos have a gritty realistic look so they are better....But that's all subjective....I'm not arguing that. I simply believe the "standard" for digital film making needs to evolve. I'm making films in 2012 and beyond not 1922....So personally...my view...(pun intended) is that 48fps IS better. The "proof" will be in the pudding when this eventually becomes a norm.

Well, I like 'The Hobbit' and loved the Peter Jackson LOTR saga.

The Beeb review included both good and bad opinions of 48fps footage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17836380#