The Hobbit as prequel

I just saw a link to this article on TORn, which got me thinking:

Dan Brown wrote:But here’s the thing: Tolkien wrote LOTR after The Hobbit, not before. Those three books came out starting in 1954, so The Hobbit is the original work and LOTR the sequel to it, not the other way around.

This means The Hobbit does not fit the definition of a prequel: A story created as a sequel, but set in the past of the original work.

Interestingly, I just made a post about a similar topic on Planet Tolkien earlier today:

Eldorion wrote:My feelings are somewhat similar to Kafria's. I am not at all enthused about the apparent plan to make The Hobbit a typical movie prequel, instead of an adaptation of the original book (which is not a prequel). I am hopeful that LOTR roles such as Frodo will be, as Elijah Wood says, minor, but the fact that they are being added at all suggests to me that the film-makers are just trying to shoehorn in as many familiar faces as they can. As discouraged as I am by all the non-Tolkien material, I'm even more worried that the films will simply repeat the mistakes of so many other movie prequels of recent years.

Now, clearly, Mr. Brown (no idea if he's the same guy who wrote The Da Vinci Code )is correct that Tolkien's book The Hobbit is not a prequel. It doesn't fit most dictionary definitions and it doesn't fit the common usage of the word. However, I think that the way the film-makers appear to be making the two films (based on the various statements they have made over the past few years), I think it appears that they are trying to make a prequel to PJ's film version of LOTR.

The point I'm getting at is that I'm rather worried that The Hobbit will turn out to follow the standard movie prequel MO of including as many old characters as possible and keeping many similarities to the original work. The book is in this case written in a distinct style and tone from LOTR, but the films will include a number of common characters beyond those between the books, as well as bringing back Sauron as a villain. I worry that this will end up making the Hobbit films weaker and more derivative than the book they're based on.

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but movie prequels rarely seem to turn out that well. I'd rather they focused on adapting the book than making connections with the first three films.

This is what I've being saying along Eldo!
I raised fears long ago about the difference in tone, in fear PJ would do exactly what he appears to be doing- altering TH to fit his version of LotR.
Its seems ever more clear that TH story is going to be no more than a skeleton on which they hang their own LoTRised version of TH with the rise of Sauron, the corruption of Saruman, the discovery of the Ring (and somehow I suspect they will make more of that now than in the book) the WC and even a love story with some elves. We have Frodo, Legolas, Radagast, Galadriel- its not shaping up well as an adaptation is it?

Including Radagast is a severe problem among severe problems. Will they introduce him and then kill him off? He appears only in Tolkien's book (LotR not TH), and he is not even in the films. Unless he will just be a cameo at the WC with no real weight as a character? The stronger his characterization, the more notable his absence will be from the LotR movies:-Jane

janesmith wrote:Including Radagast is a severe problem among severe problems. Will they introduce him and then kill him off? He appears only in Tolkien's book (LotR not TH), and he is not even in the films. Unless he will just be a cameo at the WC with no real weight as a character? The stronger a character he turns out to be, the more noticeable his absence from the LotR movies will be:-Jane

Interesting! Had not thought of this. What you say makes much sense and I'm no longer too happy about Radagast in TH. They could end up killing him off, they killed Haldir so they could certainly do it again if they think it is needed.

That's a good point, Jane, and one I'd not considered myself yet. I think it's reflective of one of the problems facing movie prequels in general, though.

Eldorion wrote:That's a good point, Jane, and one I'd not considered myself yet. I think it's reflective of one of the problems facing movie prequels in general, though.

Well, as we all seem to agree that The Hobbit is clearly NOT a prequel, I don't think it really causes any problems that Radagast isn't in the LotR films. He'll just be a character that appears in the White Council Sequences. No White Council in the LotR films, so no problem at all really.

As to The Hobbit being called a Prequel, that's just silly. Dan Brown's Angels and Demons was written before the Da Vinci Code, and there wasn't all this nonsense about being a "prequel." It's the wrong word entirely.

I like what The Hobbit is termed on the Book's cover: "the enchanting Prelude to LotR." Prelude is grammatically more correct as it is a clear statement that The Hobbit came first.

GB

Well I still think there is grounds for calling it a prequal. A dictionary definition of the word is: (Performing Arts) a film or book about an earlier stage of a story or a character's life, released because the later part of it has already been successful

Despite the factor that The Hobbit was written an age before LOTR, it's events come before LOTR, which classify it as prequel surely? To be a prequel it doesn't have to be written before something else in my mind. To me, especially after reading LOTR for the first time, The Hobbit is a sort of a prequel, set in happier times, which make the stark change in LOTR even more vivid. But maybe that's just me...

Gandalf's Beard wrote:As to The Hobbit being called a Prequel, that's just silly. Dan Brown's Angels and Demons was written before the Da Vinci Code, and there wasn't all this nonsense about being a "prequel." It's the wrong word entirely.

I agree with you about the book, GB, but the idea of this thread was the implications of certain potential changes on the films. I certainly agree that the book is not a prequel, though.

Ally wrote:Well I still think there is grounds for calling it a prequal. A dictionary definition of the word is: (Performing Arts) a film or book about an earlier stage of a story or a character's life, released because the later part of it has already been successful

Despite the factor that The Hobbit was written an age before LOTR, it's events come before LOTR, which classify it as prequel surely? To be a prequel it doesn't have to be written before something else in my mind. To me, especially after reading LOTR for the first time, The Hobbit is a sort of a prequel, set in happier times, which make the stark change in LOTR even more vivid. But maybe that's just me...

A prequel is a type of sequel, not the opposite of a sequel. I don't think The Hobbit is a prequel to LOTR anymore than the first Harry Potter book is a prequel to the second. The implication when talking about a prequel is that it was made after the original work, but that it goes back to an earlier point in time in the fictional world. Just looking at your definition, it points out that the prequel was released because something else was already successful. The Hobbit was the first book set in Middle-earth to be published.

" prequel was released because something else was already successful."

Surely The Hobbit is being released because of the critical acclaim that the LOTR trilogy received though?

That is true, and it's why I think the films could be considered a prequel to PJ's films even though the book is not a prequel at all.

Prequel is a made up word that means a sequel which contains events prior to later events that has already been published. The Hobbit was written first, thus it can't be a prequel. LotR is a Sequel of the Hobbit, regardless of which was filmed first. Prelude would be grammatically more correct to describe The Hobbit.

(sorry for being a grammar nazi )

GB

That's entirely true when talking about the books but the film-makers are making their own creation. Their version of The Hobbit is shaping up to be fairly different from the book and to have many more direct connections to the LOTR films, so I don't see the problem in considering that the films might be different from the book when it comes to prequel status as well. If nothing else, the film-makers seem to be approaching this with the attitude of it being a prequel to PJ's LOTR.

Eldorion wrote:That's entirely true when talking about the books but the film-makers are making their own creation. Their version of The Hobbit is shaping up to be fairly different from the book and to have many more direct connections to the LOTR films, so I don't see the problem in considering that the films might be different from the book when it comes to prequel status as well. If nothing else, the film-makers seem to be approaching this with the attitude of it being a prequel to PJ's LOTR.

I can't believe that I'm being as Crabbity as Petty about this. It doesn't make any difference to me. most of the "new sruff" is stuff that Tolkien SHOULD have put in the Hobbit.

GB

I am so not going there right now.

Agree to disagree?

Eldorion wrote:I am so not going there right now.

Agree to disagree?

Of course.

I'm probably just being grouchy from lack of sleep (though it's always annoyed me that Tolkien left out what Gandalf was doing with all that coming and going. I mean, being his beard and all, I SHOULD know what Gandalf was doing ).

GB

Knowing what Gandalf (and his Beard) is doing, where he is and what's happening will alter his character from the book. It will make him more like the Gandalf of the films. Less mysterious, less enigmatic. Gandalf's coming and goings are perfect when you're a kid, adults do it all the time go off somewhere no idea where and come back a bit stressed (turns out it was work they were going to!).
But that feeling when the only person who knows what's going on disappears somewhere and leaves you for periods of time is one all children have an empathy with. We all think as kids our parents must know everything, like Gandalf, and when they are not around life is all the more uncertain for it. As it is for Bilbo.
Showing where Gandalf is and what's going on ruins that completely.

Gandalf being missing - and not knowing where he was - made it all the more tense for me as I walked with the Company through Mirkwood, starving slowly...

{{{admittedly, I snuck a cheese and bikkie snack - or two... [and a sandwich - or two] ... I mean, it's not like the dwarves knew I was nibbing away -and it's not as if I could share with them - I did want to... I swear I would have shared if I could have... honest... you do believe me don't you, Petty? }}}

{{{{ If it will make you feel better Orwell , yes, and thats more important than truth. Reading my above post back its surprising insightful! Must have been at least a six barrel post that one  }}}}

I suspect you were only on a barrel a day back then.. not that you'd remember... what with the lost brain cells and all....

Hey they are not lost, they are very, very drunk somewhere having a good time.

You only 'believe' that. How can you 'know'?