# Is The Hobbit a prequel or a precursor?



## blur (Feb 17, 2011)

Read the article linked, and have your say.

http://kingunderthemountain.com/2011/02/17/when-is-a-prequel-not-a-prequel/


----------



## Peeping-Tom (Feb 17, 2011)

A agree, with the term "prequel" for the Hobbit movie, for three reasons :

1) Peter Jackson released the LOTR trilogy first.
2) The movies are only "based" on Tolkiens Books with a lot of changes, and not a word-for-word adaptation.
3) The Hobbit-movie contains, so much more than just "There and back again". It also includes a lot from the Appendix's of the LOTR, to make it a "bridge" to the Fellowship-movie.

You can not say the same of the books, of course.

It's difficult to compare the movies and the books. I some instances, it's like two different stories. Probably, the same for the Hobbit-book (There and back again) and the Hobbit-movie.


----------



## Thorin (Feb 19, 2011)

I agree, as far as the movies go, that the Hobbit is a prequel.
However, in terms of the books, it is simply one of many stories which include the Lord of the Rings in the historic epic tale of Middle Earth, a 'continuing saga', if you will, of the history of Middle Earth in the Third Age as told first in the Hobbit and then in LoTR.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 23, 2011)

Who cares......

Semantics....

Just MAKE THE DAMNED THING ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant over.....

Return to your regularly scheduled pointless discussion. ;*)


----------

