There are a number of fast-motion scenes, so 3D is a bit risky if you get nausous easily.
But on the thread's note:
A) Yes, I did Had the same epic touch, attention to detail, and overall good/great scenes as the Lord of the Rings trilogy that came before it (or after it). It follows the book pretty closely, with a few small exceptions/additions. The biggest difference is the different characterizations of the 13 dwarves, when in the book most of them were just... there. It's a big improvement though imo
B) No. For me and my family, 3D is nothing but distracting from the film's content, regardless of whether it's done well or badly.
If you loved the Lord of the Rings, you'll love The Hobbit just as easily. It may be split into 3 movies (2 of which are the book; third is still undetermined), but it's pretty great regardless.
I watched this in 2D yesterday, and I thought it was well worth the money. Didn't feel the need to see it in 3D as it didn't seem like a '3D' film (if that makes sense). Some films, such as Avatar and others that are filmed for 3D, great, but the Hobbit Trilogy looks just as good without. ...well, the first film of the Trilogy does; I've not seen the other two yet.
But yeah, it was a solid film, well worth the watch.
I had a Hobbitses party. People came over, we ate pizza and watched the 1977 animated Hobbit, then went to the theatre to catch the new one.
Very enjoyable overall.
But it was a little surreal to watch the whole book play out in 1 hour and 17 minutes, and then watch only 1/3 of the book in 3 hours. . . :::scratches taco:::
Actually, it was more 1/2 of the movie If I recall correctly, the whole Mirkwood stuff and beyond was after the halfway point. And if I read my facts right, this movie and the next one detail the events of the Hobbit. The third movie will deal with more of the in-between Hobbit and LotR stuff, I think
And the animated version, still own it myself Very dated by now, but good memories