The Hobbit

[andyc (Andy)]

Being pernickity, The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit (books). A 'prequel', to me, is like in the Star Wars franchise where the wrote films after the original trilogy, but set before the original trilogy. But that's maybe just me! LOTR is much deeper and more detailed than The Hobbit ever was, and it works better for the films to have done LOTR first. The slightly simpler, more fantastical parts of the Hobbit are probably a bit easier to accept this way around.

As to the film, I really enjoyed it, actually. I went, prepared to be a wee bit disappointed (some ropey reviews), but was enthralled. I guess I just really do like the way the films have captured Middle-Earth! Probably, being a Tolkein fan, I was much less bothered by the slower parts, as I enjoy the finer details of the whole story. Am looking forward to the next two films.

[Terry B]

I read LOTR and the Silmarillion as a teenager and loved them. I re-read LOTR after the movies came out and must admit that I wasn't terribly impressed when reading it again.
Whilst it is good fantasy I found the writing style quite droll and it reads like a travel log rather than enthralling literature.
The movies were well made but did seem to be excuses for big battle scenes. The battles in the books were more of a side issue whilst the quest was occurring.
I remember being very interested with the Silmarillion as a teenager. Maybe I should re-read it as well.
I haven't seen the Hobbit yet but my kids saw it today. My daughter described it as a 3 hour introduction and was not terribly impressed.
I'll wait and see.

Terry

[DJT (David)]

I have read LOTR to both kids as bed time reading and am sure they have never forgiven me for that.

I read The hobbit afterwards for myself and I dont believe for one minute you can get 3 movies out of it. Its a prequel? maybe..but i doubt that was the intent.

The Silmarilliion (excuse spelling) though is a great yarn..in the vein of LOTR. Now thats a good prequel I would like to see..just not necessarily in three parts (is it a sequel or prequel?)

[Varangian (John)]

Yes Tolkien penned the Hobbit for his son Christopher when Christopher was very young. As Christopher aged the story became more complex with regard to LOTR. The Hobbit is essentially a tale for a very young child.

I have not seen the movie, but I struggle to comprehend how you derive 9 hours of movie time from a 200 page book.

[andyc (Andy)]

There's a decent bit of story about the White Council's monitoring Sauron's return, and that story will probably develop to the driving of the Necromancer out of Mirkwood. Maybe there'll be further events from Middle-Earth that are only hinted at in the book? Certainly the first film was not solely Bilbo's tale.