Magical flaming pinecone.
Hahaha I guess I could.
Hereās a list of theatres that have the capability of showing it at 48 fps. Not sure if itās comprehensive or not but thereās quite a few.
God damn, thereās exactly one in my state, and itās two hours away. 
I hope they donāt charge extra for the high FPS, nearly all the cinemas around here have it.
The cinema Iām planning a visit to has it in 48 fps, but only in 3D, which I could do without. Thatās a bit annoying.
__
In other news, weāre finally back on above-zero temperatures. No more jackets for me, yay!
Oh please, not you too with that āno 3Dā bullshit. I blocked my best online friend on Steam because he was also pissing me off with that attitude.
Give the god damn thing a chance in 3D, itās really fucking worth it.
You blocked you best online friend? BECAUSE OF THAT!? Now with all due respect, if actually did that, then youāre a twat. Now there are loads of reasons for not liking 3D, one of them being that it draws you away from the actual characters, environments, and story and instead shoves a poorly implemented, gimmicky feature in your face, that is only there because one movie back in 2009 did it well.
I unblocked him like an hour later. But, cāmon, even the fucking artwork was done in handmade 3D. This is not like one of those movies where the 3D is an afterthought and done in post. This is real stereoscopic 3D with real depth.
His complete and constant refusal just pissed me off so much at that hour and now that Iāve seen in 3D, Iām even more upset that he refuses to pass on such a beautiful experience.
There are some legitimate problems with 3d though:
People that wear glasses have a hard time with the 3d glasses.
A lot of theaters donāt show the movie at a proper light level because it actually takes effort to switch the theater from 3d to non-3d and they donāt want the hassle.
Also, I have heard good and bad things about the 3d in The Hobbit. I have heard it is the best since Avatar, and the worst of the year and to see it in 2d because the vistas (which there are a lot of in a Jackson Rings movie) will look better.
Personally, I havenāt seen it yet, but I would also be more likely to lean towards a non-3d showing. I donāt care for the technology even when done right. I like my movies flat on the screen. Itās just a personal preference.
The light levels were just right, since the darkening of the picture happens when the 3D is done in post. The Hobbitās was not and it looked just right.
The 3D did not worsen the panoramic vistas. If anything it made them look even more real.
I canāt stress this enough. The Hobbit is the best 3D theater experience youāll ever see this year.
I did have a bit of a problem with the glasses, and I wear correcting glasses, but only because the glasses I was given were too loose. I switched glasses with my sister and hers were tighter. After that no more problems.
Well, 3D has in the past given me headaches, and I just cannot stand the glasses, so I have reasons for feeling as I do.
Iām not one of those trying to rage a holy war against it or anything, and I am going to give it another try with this movie. As you say, the quality varies, and hopefully this one will be better.
I have to say, I wear glasses and the 3D ones fit just fine over the top of them. I watched the Hobbit yesterday in 3D and 48fps and it looked absolutely stunning. Shame the story wasnāt a little more interesting but thatās what you get when you turn a short childrenās book into three three hour filmsā¦
3D movies legitimately do not work for me. Theyāre dark, blurry, give me a headache, and I see no 3D effect at all. Not sure why.
Maybe youāve only seen post-processed 3D movies?
The main problem I have with 3D is that it costs extra. Iām already paying nearly ā¬10, thatās quite enough to see a movie tbh.
Are you as colorblind as I am?
The higher framerate will help with the headaches.
A certain percentage of people simply canāt see 3D via polarized 3D.
Yep. Anaglyph works fine for me. Polarized doesnāt.