Overly long = unnecessary scenes? I found the length only a minor issue, and I barely felt the 170 minutes runtime. The fact that I did genuinely care for some of the characters is already an achievement. I was really afraid if the 'adventure feel' would be lost. Peter Jackson had always wanted to 'complete' the LOTR Trilogy with The Hobbit, back then he was not well known at all and it was a big risk to have green-lit three films.

After the LOTR Trilogy, there was a lot of talk about doing The Hobbit but PJ distanced himself, making "King Kong" and "The Lovely Bones" instead, heck he wasn't even going to direct it but everything fell into place.

In the end, I am really pleased with how the film turned out to be. You can really tell PJ tried his best to bring back memories from the LOTR Trilogy and a number of instances in the film made me feel like I stepped into a time machine.

Why would anyone want to compare "The Hobbit" to the LOTR Trilogy, I have no idea. These are two separate stories in the same world. There is no way it is going to have the epic scale of those films, but we did see glimpses of war and (again) LOTR fans would rejoice.

For me, no. Not really worth it. The one at 1U was blurry and noticeably pixelated, felt like they failed to properly configure the display or something. 2D version is in 24fps, so if planning on seeing it again why not go 48fps instead... the 'rarest' of all at this point.

Refer: http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=56858945

3/5 boring