answer: quality was so clear and clean
paragraph_question: question: What is the quality of the video?, context: Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.  Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD.  It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version.  If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set.  I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough. 
sentence:  Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.
paragraph: Wow.  And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't.  But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context.  Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing).  I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them).  Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under.  I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself.  In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure.  It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring".  While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up.  His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together.  The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King".  What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure.  It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences.  It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood).  This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started.  It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character.  Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings".  As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie.  Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions.  Why are they not questioning their being sent there?  Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person?  And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad?  Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time.  Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story.  It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales".  For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith.  Poor Hugo).  There's no epic battle with Albino orcs.  The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy.  Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie.  Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor.  He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown.  Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely.  He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified).  I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example).  As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D).  So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about.  The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props.  The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area.  Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking.  Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well.  Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them.  They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size.  Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck.  In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them.  This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything.  In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum.  A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special.  The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long.  I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here.  Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively.  This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure.  In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch.  But don't expect it to blow you away.  It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD.  It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version.  If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set.  I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough. 
sentence_answer:  Overall, the <hl> quality was so clear and clean <hl> that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.
paragraph_answer: Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the <hl> quality was so clear and clean <hl> that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough. 
paragraph_sentence: Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover. First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read "The Hobbit", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the "Star Wars" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there. For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the "Fellowship of the Ring". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along. The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be "There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale", seen at the end of the "Return of the King". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit..." and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure. I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation. Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as "The Silmarillion" and "Unfinished Tales". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said "purpose", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in "The Hobbit" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see "A Wrinkle in Time" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone. Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the "speed" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. <hl> Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed. <hl> If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day. Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable. Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and "The Hobbit" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called "The Dwarven Quest" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one. If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.