Oh, crap.

I think what hasn't been said in those pieces is that what's been shown at Cinemacon is likely not a finished product.  It's a clip that's been put together for the purposes of expos like this one which primarily focuses on theater owners, as well as studio execs. 

48 fps is definitely not going to look like what everyone is used to.  Here's something from Slashfilm about the presentation:

A brief primer: Modern films are shot and projected at 24 frames per second. That has been the industry standard for feature films since the mid-1920s after sound motion pictures were introduced. The low frame rate results in a strobing effect when there is moderate camera movement. You have probably accepted this technological artifacting, but it looks artificial and your brain interprets it as such. Raising the framerate makes movement look a lot smoother, and gives the impression of an enhanced resolution. The low framerate is also one of the major factors of why some people experience discomfort while watching 3D movies.

I get the feeling that the reel that was shown at Cinemacon hadn't undergone the final level of digital grading.  And if you go back through your LOTR DVD bonus material you'll find a feature about this very process.  Digital grading is generally done after the final cut of the movie, and addresses the lighting and related mood of the movie through processes that aren't all that dissimilar to photoshop. 

In a feature like The Hobbit, a scene with some heavy dramatic content may actually be shot in lighting that can seem contrary to the tone of the scene.  Especially if there are going to be CGI elements added in post-production.  And that's because it's easier to incorporate those CGI elements into a well lit scene so that those elements which are going to potentially be the toughest sell for the audience will look right.  After that, with digital grading you're essentially re-lighting the scene to add to the dramatic tone.

All of this being said, I'm not a huge fan of the current crop of 3d movies.  But I think that the blur that's been mentioned which is inherent to quick camera moves in the 24 fps format may have something to do with the jarring feeling of some of those viewing experiences.  48 fps will aid in this, but will it affect the feel of the final cut of the movie?  Something like this could potentially hurt a movie, but in the grand scheme of things who will be going to see The Hobbit?  Certainly not film purists, because much of that crowd has already made their minds up about movies like The Hobbit long before they ever get a chance to see it in theaters.

I just watched the post-movie-credits scene... PM me if you want a link to get your **** spoiled.

Edit: link is now dead. Video pulled by Marvel.

Damn!  They're really gonna go there?!?!

Interesting.  That sure looks like a skrull in there...

Gotta be a comic series figure.  Kind of like the Comic series (Ultimates) Thor or Captain America.

And now we finally see movie Hawkeye in an assortment, too.

Here is some of the Times Square TRU display:

It's been said in the series that poison is indeed a woman's weapon.  The books have expanded on the John Arryn storyline a bit.  I suspect that the show may revisit that in season 4.  I'm in the midst of reading the 1st book - I skipped it but read the rest of series.  and that might go into the story of Cersei's first child with King Robert.

As for last night's episode?  Where to start?

Robb's attack on the Lannister camp is something I seem to recall from book 2.  However the Volantene woman was an interesting addition.  It was also cool to see Roose Bolton introduced.

I had to do something a double-take with the Harrenhal sequence.  That's due in large part to the recasting of Ser Gregor Clegane.  I was watching Spartacus - Vengeance on Starz a few weeks back and remarking to myself "Hey, isn't that the same guy who played The Mountain on Game of Thrones?"  Sure enough it was.  And from what I've read online the role of Ser Gregor was recast because of a scheduling conflict with Conan Stevens who played the part in Season 1.  The new actor is apparently 7' 1", but he didn't seem anywhere near as brutal.

As for the rest of Harrenhal?  They definitely nailed it as a very eerie place.  And I started to recognize some of the people who wind up in Arya's prayer.  The Tickler came across as very obvious.

As for the Stannis/Renly storyline?  It seems as though the show has done some story consolidation there.  Especially the parts with Davos and Melisandre.

After posting I remember reading of an Avengers display in NYC. I realize now that is the one Nick was speaking about.   

SORRY!

About a week ago one of the Marvel sites posted a couple of not-so-great images from this display at TRU in Times Square.  I was finally able to take a few photos on my own, and I'll post those a little later.

I picked up the "unmasked" Rocket Grenade Cap, mostly so I could use the head for customs, but it's not a bad figure. I'd prefer wrist or torso articulation over ball-jointed hips, but I don't miss the lack of ankles at all.

I picked this one up over the weekend.  It looks pretty cool, but it is also the Captain America movie uniform.

Earlier this afternoon I had the opportunity to check out the Avengers display at the TRU flagship store in Times Square.  I'll be able to post some photos later tonight, but the quick version?

All of wave 1 of the movie figures were on display:  Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk & Loki.  There was also a Quinjet as well as the Helicarrier.  The Quinjet looks cool in person.  The Helicarrier is fairly big, but the scale was obviously a compromise.

As for the new figures?  Those included Nick Fury, the Black Widow and the Chitauri.  It appears that there may be two different Chitauri figures:  a basic version, and a Deluxe version with some kind of speeder vehicle.

And no, I did not see a movie version of Hawkeye in the display.  That was kind of a surprise.