- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Screw Rotten Tomatoes overall %, what did the M/TV board think of The Hobbit
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:13 pm to CP3LSU25
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:13 pm to CP3LSU25
quote:i thought that was exactly what the hobbit was
The hobbit is not a prequel.
quote:wait what? my review was 100% honest i was not attempting to do anything but give my opinion of the movie
I know fear he is just wrote that so stir up stuff about why I was mad at his review.
eta: lord of the rings prequel takes unexpected journey
This post was edited on 1/5/13 at 3:28 pm
1
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:38 pm to Fearthehat0307
quote:
The Hobbit is also not a prequel, invented after-the-fact, to make more story or explain anything. It stands on its own and did so before there was a LOTR and was written first. Preaching to the choir here, I know.
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:44 pm to CP3LSU25
quote:well frick i am confused now. everything i ever read or saw said it was a prequel to lotr. just because it could stand on its own doesn't mean its not a prequel i dont follow that logic.
The Hobbit is also not a prequel
i will take your word for it though you know a great bit more about it than i do
eta: after rereading this quote
quote:i dont think it is saying its not a prequel it is saying its not a prequel that was invented after the fact ot make more story or explain anything. i think the quote is saying it is in fact a prequel but that is not its purpose
The Hobbit is also not a prequel, invented after-the-fact, to make more story or explain anything.
This post was edited on 1/5/13 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:48 pm to Fearthehat0307
That's what the people at theonering.net said. I always trust what they have to say they know more than me. Take it up with them. Or ask OMLandshark or IwyLSUIwy. 
I'm not sure but wasn't the star war movies created after the one's in the 70's?
I'm not sure but wasn't the star war movies created after the one's in the 70's?
This post was edited on 1/5/13 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:49 pm to Fearthehat0307
the hobbit, while has some of the same characters, has nothing to do with the LOTR story
that's how I see it at least. can something be a prequel if it has nothing to do with the story?
that's how I see it at least. can something be a prequel if it has nothing to do with the story?
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:51 pm to CP3LSU25
quote:i'm almost 100% sure the person that wrote that is acknowledging that it is a prequel but was not created for the purposes he listed.
That's what the people at theonering.net said. I always trust what they have to say they know more than me. Take it up with them. Or ask OMLandshark or IwyLSUIwy.
quote:i think they were but i think it was set before the original trilogy making it a prequel. not 100% sure though i just watched the original trilogy for the first time the other day
I'm not sure but wasn't the star war movies created after the one's in the 70's?
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:52 pm to Gnar Cat21
quote:well doesn't it start off with bilbo recalling the story and writing it for frodo.
that's how I see it at least. can something be a prequel if it has nothing to do with the story?
also
quote:i think the ring is an important part of both
has nothing to do with the LOTR story
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:53 pm to Fearthehat0307
I think he means the Hobbit (book) was written and publihed first (before LOTR). So in that sense it is not a prequel. Movie wise I'd guess it can be considered a prequel. Also, to the extent that it draws on materials from the appendecies to the LOTR book (and maybe from the Similarion) which I'm pretty sure were written or at least published after the majority of LOTR and provides background, I guess those parts could be considered prequels). Of course I'm basing that on the fact that the appendecies are located at the end of the third book of LOTR so I could be wrong.)
Also, my original point really had nothing to do with whether the Hobbit was a prequel or not. Just that some Star Wars/Lucas fans showed very similar passion in defendig any slights they perceived against the SW prequels as CP and others show in defending any slights they perceive to The Hobbit.
Also, my original point really had nothing to do with whether the Hobbit was a prequel or not. Just that some Star Wars/Lucas fans showed very similar passion in defendig any slights they perceived against the SW prequels as CP and others show in defending any slights they perceive to The Hobbit.
Posted on 1/5/13 at 3:55 pm to Methuselah
quote:yeah but you mentioned similarities between the hobbit and star wars. cp3 can never forgive you he hates one and loves the other and goes into a blind rage if comparisons are made
Also, my original point really had nothing to do with whether the Hobbit was a prequel or not.
Posted on 1/5/13 at 4:15 pm to Fearthehat0307
quote:
well doesn't it start off with bilbo recalling the story and writing it for frodo.
That was because PJ wanted to incorporate LOTR stuff. Just the movie
Posted on 1/5/13 at 4:31 pm to CP3LSU25
quote:what's so bad about it being a prequel? i don't get why that is a bad thing. it happened before lord of the rings and it contains frodo's adopted parent and cousin bilbo and it begins the story of the ring, which is continued in lord of the rings. it is in fact a prequel to lord of the rings. the timeline begins with the hobbit and ends with lord of the rings.
That was because PJ wanted to incorporate LOTR stuff. Just the movie
eta: its like you just want to be against anything i say about the movie so you argue against me.
This post was edited on 1/5/13 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 1/5/13 at 4:44 pm to Fearthehat0307
FWIW, I think what happened was that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first and I'm pretty sure it was published in the mid to late 1930's. Publishers wanted a sequel due to the good sales/popularity of the Hobbit. Tolkien then started writing the LOTRs which took a long time (WWII may even have intervened in there). I think Tolkien even went back on one or more occasions and chaged things up in the Hobbit to make it "fit in" better with LOTR (in particular, I think the riddle game and Bilbo's parting from Gollum was changed to show more of an attachment/addicton of Gollum for the ring and maybe even to show it having some negative effects on Bilbo that early on - not sure of that last part though).
Bottom line, I think there was some effort on behalf of Tolkien to make the events of the Hobbit relevant to what then happened in LOTR. I think the appendecies even mention what happened with some of the characters/races depicted in the Hobbit while the main events of LOTR were going n).
Bottom line, I think there was some effort on behalf of Tolkien to make the events of the Hobbit relevant to what then happened in LOTR. I think the appendecies even mention what happened with some of the characters/races depicted in the Hobbit while the main events of LOTR were going n).
Posted on 1/5/13 at 5:00 pm to Methuselah
quote:i may just not understand the true meaning of prequel but if lotr was a sequel to the hobbit wouldn't the hobbit therefore be a prequel to lotr?
Publishers wanted a sequel due to the good sales/popularity of the Hobbit.
i think you are agreeing that its a prequel i'm just trying to see if i am following the right logic
Posted on 1/5/13 at 5:23 pm to Fearthehat0307
The Hobbit = WWI
LOTR = WWII
Are they 2 stand alone events? Yes. Are they related and connected. Absolutely.
LOTR = WWII
Are they 2 stand alone events? Yes. Are they related and connected. Absolutely.
Posted on 1/6/13 at 12:11 am to Fearthehat0307
quote:
what's so bad about it being a prequel? i don't get why that is a bad thing
There is nothing bad. I'm sorry if I came across being angry. Just passing on info from theonering.net.
Posted on 1/6/13 at 12:16 am to Fearthehat0307
A prequel is what the newer Star Wars movies are from my understanding. Something written after the actual story.
Posted on 1/6/13 at 12:17 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
The Hobbit = WWI
LOTR = WWII
Which is why it's better than Star Wars. NO DOUBT
Posted on 1/6/13 at 9:59 am to CP3LSU25
quote:i went read the definition of prequel and it seems we have a little ambiguity.
A prequel is what the newer Star Wars movies are from my understanding. Something written after the actual story.
quote:the strict literary version of the hobbit is not a prequel. if you add the appendicies though it becomes partially a prequel because they were written after lotr was written to add to the hobbit. i haven't read the appendicies so feel free to correct me.
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.
the cinematic adaptation however is a prequel in the sense that the hobbit was created as a movie after lotr was already made
Posted on 1/6/13 at 10:01 am to CP3LSU25
quote:not saying whether you are right are wrong because i agree with you that LOTR is better than star wars. i don't think the hobbit will be based on the first one but the next 2 could turn out to be great and make it true but is this what makes a movie better than another? following this logic any world war I or world war II movies are all greater than movies not about WWI or WWII. that is a ridiculous assumption
The Hobbit = WWI
LOTR = WWII
Which is why it's better than Star Wars. NO DOUBT
eta: you can also make comparisons between the star wars trilogy and numerous revolutionary wars, if war is the standard you are going to use
This post was edited on 1/6/13 at 10:17 am
Posted on 1/6/13 at 10:40 am to CP3LSU25
Just my opinion on the prequel/sequel thing...
The Hobbit was written first. Then obviously LOTR was written after. So book wise, you could almost consider LOTR a sequel to The Hobbit, though that is not really how Tolkien wanted it to be viewed. You can tell that just by the difference in tone/mood/vibe of the two. It's just impressive that they do. You have generations and decades later, story wise, and they tie in and you can relate characters of the two.
It can easily be viewed as a prequel to the general audience because it is movies that are telling events that happened before LOTR and that came out after they were released. Completely opposite of how they were written. So it's easy to see them as prequels though, especially after how Star Wars played out (Written after the originals, but telling earlier events), though they really are not.
Book wise, The Silmarilion is a true prequel. He started writing it earlier than LOTR but had the intentions of it telling previous events. You hear/read plenty of times in the LOTR of "the darker days" and mentions of the lighted trees and lights going out ect. All references to earlier times. In The Two Towers, Gandalf even tells Pippen a short rundown of what happened long ago. He basically begs Gandalf for more of the story to be told and Gandalf says no there isn't enough time right now.
So I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it. If you're looking at them solely as movies and not worried about the books, then sure it will be a prequel for you. But book wise, it's not a prequel. Finished a number of years before LOTR actually.
The Hobbit was written first. Then obviously LOTR was written after. So book wise, you could almost consider LOTR a sequel to The Hobbit, though that is not really how Tolkien wanted it to be viewed. You can tell that just by the difference in tone/mood/vibe of the two. It's just impressive that they do. You have generations and decades later, story wise, and they tie in and you can relate characters of the two.
It can easily be viewed as a prequel to the general audience because it is movies that are telling events that happened before LOTR and that came out after they were released. Completely opposite of how they were written. So it's easy to see them as prequels though, especially after how Star Wars played out (Written after the originals, but telling earlier events), though they really are not.
Book wise, The Silmarilion is a true prequel. He started writing it earlier than LOTR but had the intentions of it telling previous events. You hear/read plenty of times in the LOTR of "the darker days" and mentions of the lighted trees and lights going out ect. All references to earlier times. In The Two Towers, Gandalf even tells Pippen a short rundown of what happened long ago. He basically begs Gandalf for more of the story to be told and Gandalf says no there isn't enough time right now.
So I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it. If you're looking at them solely as movies and not worried about the books, then sure it will be a prequel for you. But book wise, it's not a prequel. Finished a number of years before LOTR actually.
This post was edited on 1/6/13 at 10:46 am
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News