MovieChat Forums > The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Discussion > Wait, this is considered a "sequel" ??

Wait, this is considered a "sequel" ??


According to many box office websites they rank it as one of the most successful "sequels" of all-time.

Personally, I would not classify it as a "sequel" ...although I supposed it could be thought of as a "prequel".

reply

Absolutely a prequel.

reply

Should this movie really be considered a prequel though since in reality the book was the original and the LotR was the sequel?

reply

That's wrong. "The Hobbit" was a prequel to the LOTR books that came later. Someone messed up when writing that review.

reply

Something is only a prequel if it's released after the previous book(or movie, or whatever) yet takes place chronologically before it.

The Hobbit book was released first, so it's not a prequel to anything. It's simply a book. The LotR trilogy was released after The Hobbit, ergo it's a sequel.

Since the LotR movies were created and released first, technically The Hobbit movie trilogy is a prequel.

/mansplanation

reply

💯

reply

Your definition isn't correct. Any story that takes place before another is always either the prologue, or a prequel, regardless of what Hollywood makes of it. The events of "The Hobbit" book take place before the LOTR Trilogy books, and therefore, qualify under that definition. The movies just happened to be made and released in the opposite order due to Peter Jackson being more interested in the LOTR stories first.

You're just so used to the movie version of the "prequel" definition that you think that's the only way to define a story that takes place before a major one, and that's not true.

reply

What I'm "used to" has absolutely zero bearing here. I simply know the correct definition of the word prequel, and you don't.

reply

Neither do you, it seems.

reply

She’s right.

Duff is wrong.

Poor, poor Duff.

reply

THEY ARE RIGHT...NO OFFENSE TO THE BOOKS...BUT THE FILMS ARE A DIFFERENT ENTITY.

reply

You could say that the film is a prequel to LOTR but you could not say that the Hobbit book is a prequel to the LOTR books. It is rather simply the book that was written and published first. To use the term "prequel" implies that it was published afterward.

reply

It was a prequel.

However when Tolkein wrote the book it was a standalone children's book. It was never planned to be connected to any other story. Then it was retrofitted into a prequel to the Lord of the Rings by the author himself.

reply

any film that is released after another film is the literal definition of a "sequel"

the timing of the story has nothing to do with it

words like "prequel" and "sidequel" were just made up as marketing gimmicks

reply