The Hobbit is no more a prequel than Red Dragon. It came first, and much like Manhunter, I saw The Hobbit as a child.

The Hobbit is in no way whatsoever a prequel. If anything LotR was meant as a sequel to the Hobbit. Not only that, they are two different styles/approaches telling different parts of the same epic story, so they almost don't even feel like part of the same series, though they have the same setting. The Silmarilion/Lost Book of Tales 1 & 2, and the Unfinished Tales would be considered a 3rd set that's even more distinct that the other two, and would be more applicable to be called prequels (though Tolkien wrote much of the Silmarillion before the Hobbit or LotR, despite it not being published till after his death).

I must ask KA, what's your beef with the Hobbit movie? (or the original movies for that matter) as you seem to be a hater...

i heard prometheus wasn't an alien film at all, apart from being set in the same universe... not really a prequel either...

X-men first class?

Wolverine Xmen origins?

I don't think KA has a beef with the Hobbit. He was making a point that there *are* good prequels out there.

So do X-Men Legends: Wolverfine and X-Men First Class count as prequels? What about franchise reboots that take us to the origins of the main character (Casino Royale for instance)?

Orathaic is correct about Prometheus not being an Alien film

And as a movie, Peter Jackson's take on the Hobbit most definitely qualifies as a prequel. The source material may be the original and LoTR be the sequel (although as has been pointed out, different writing styles and even a different target audience as The Hobbit was written for Tolkien's kids) but this particular movie is a Prequel.

I haven't seen Prometheus, but was told it was an origins story more or less about the race of the giant alien corpse in the spacesuit that the Nostromo found. Is that not true? Of course the giant alien corpse wasn't exactly a key plot point in Alien.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Prometheus ends with the alien emerging. JRR Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and then wrote Lord of the Rings. LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit. Casino Royale is the original James Bond story.....all others are sequels. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was written at the same time as part of the same process as Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Shanghai night club scene and the mine car race were constructed and left out of the Raiders script. I have not watched the first two Dollars movies. I just presumed that The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was the second sequel within the Man with No Name Trilogy. And yes the X-Men origins movies were terrible.

http://moviecultists.com/2010/02/05/3-movie-sequels-you-never-realized-were-actually-prequels/

Check this out, that's a common mistake. Many times prequels are released as sequels...

GBU wasn't intended to be a prequel and, in fact, all the "Man with no name" movies have Eastwood's character with a different nickname and no other characters in common, plus several actors were in multiple films playing different roles. It's rare that an actor play different roles in a series. Not so rare that different actors play the same role, but different roles for the same actors usually doesn't work well in a series with character(s) in common across the movies.

@gopher - Casino royale, as filmed was a reboot and not the original novel at all. The original novel ends with "The bitch is dead." - a line used by Bond in the movie on the sailboat just before he sets out to find Mr. White, but the story (not just incidentals) has some serious variations from the novel. For instance *all* of venice. The novel wraps up shortly after SMERSH (not Quantum) saves (and marks Bond) from LeChiffre. Vesper can't live with herself for betraying Bond and commits suicide.

But the point isn't the story and their origins, but the movies in relation to each other. In the cinematic world, Dr. No was the first and OHMSS came after YOLT (which is why there is some issue with Bond not instantly recognizing Blofeld and vice vewrs in OHMSS).

Likewise, Peter Jackson's version of the Hobbit is a prequel to Peter Jackson's version of LOTR. By virtue of the fact that license is taken with story and character any time qa book is made into a movie (where is Glorfindel at Weathertop? Where are the Rangers at Helm's Deep?) so, too, must one take into context the order in which movies were made versus their fictional chronology to decide if they are presquel or sequel.

But here is another one in which a prequel was actually very good, maybe as good or better than the original. I love Hunt for Red October, but Patriot Games (it's apparent sequel) is actually a prequel, being set in 1981 instead of HFRO's 1984.

I'll disagree about Patriot Games being good. Casino Royale has more to do with the book that did You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever. I will not view The Hobbit Part II as a sequel to The Hobbit Part I and will therefore not recognize Temple of Doom as either a sequel or a prequel to Raiders. It was a bunch of stuff that was written for Raiders but did not make the final cut and then a bunch of sick shit probably rooted in the creative team both getting divorced in nasty fashion during filming.

My reasoning is similar to the reasoning that Red Dragon is not a prequel to Silence. Manhunter already existed, just to make the point inarguable. Hopkins knew Cox, any way, and explicitly based his portrayal on Cox's performance.

You didn't like Patriot Games? To each his own I guess.

Re: The Hobbit. To me it's one movie split in two parts like Kill Bill.

Re: Bond - The core plot of Diamonds are Forever is virtually identical to the movie. But then the movie had to go off and make Blofeld the villain instead of sticking with the mob boss Spang. YOLT - on the other hand - had little to do with the novel. I really wish the movies had been made in the correct order and we had gotten the Garden of Death at Blofeld's castle... But I was only 3 when OHMSS came out, so...

Based on the reasoning of you two a prequel is only a prequel if it is announced as a prequel. That is faulty logic. A prequel is determined by the timeline of the movie and the timeline of the movie release. If a movie is released after another, but takes place before the aforementioned one, and there is a clear connection between the two, then it is a prequel. Else, it is not. The fact that the prequel used scenes filmed during the original does not make it anything other than a prequel. Red Dragon is not a prequel because Hannibal is a fringe character in said book/movie. There is no clear connection. It is more of a spin-off than a prequel. The Hobbit was written before LOTR, and the movie was actually going to be released before LOTR, it is not a prequel. LOTR are sequels to the Hobbit. And under the movie-logic that makes The Hobbit a prequel to LOTR, The Godfather part II can also be considered a prequel and this whole argument would be moot as it would be the greatest prequel of all time - period.

A prequel is something separate, which is created after an original and that is placed within its internal time frame as being before the events of the original. So the Young Indian Jones Chronicles is a prequel. Arguably The Last Crusade could be called a prequel. Godfather Part II is not a prequel by my logic. It is a sequel as only the after stuff is original. The book tells Vito's back story in a fair amount of detail.

I love how this debate quickly became people with two different perspectives on the issue of good prequels who were both convinced that their perspective was right and so just tried to squirrel the definition of prequel to make their perspective the correct one.

Whoah! Don't you dare try to educate me in the Lord of the Rings. The simple fact is that a prequel means something that came before the original. The Hobbit took place before the Lord of the Rings, therefore, the movie is a prequel.

There are good prequels. There are bad ones. So why are you even bothering to make a discussion out of it?

@kaug - "the movie was actually going to be released before LOTR"

Please back this up with more than innuendo from outsiders. Jackson said all along that he wanted to do the LoTR and then go back and do the Hobbit. He wanted to do the Hobbit before King Kong, but couldn't work the deal, but he never planned to do the Hobbit before LotR. So LotR is a book sequel but a movie prequel.

@gopher - Last Crusade was after both Raiders and ToD timeline. It even has a joke when Ilsa sees an engraving of the Arc of the covenant and Indy answer her, she says "Are you sure?" and he says "pretty sure" or something to that effect. The only "prequel" aspect to Indy is ToD takes place a year before Raiders and the opening of LC is Indy's teen years almost as a flashback as the boat incident is also over the Cross of Coronado. But there is no way, not even arguably, something that takes place primarily in 1938 is a prequel to the first two which took place in 1936 and 1935 respectively.

Sorry, LotR is a book sequl bu *the Hobbit* a movie prequel. forgot a couple key words there.

The initial plan, way back in 1995 was to do first the hobbit and later on LOTR depending on the success of the movie. Later on plans changed. But it was meant to be produced before LOTR

And how is Godfather Prt II a prequel? flashbacks don't make a prequel, they make flashbacks. Godfather II is primarily set in 1958 and later outside of the brief flashback to 1901 where as the original was set in 1944 and 1945.

Again, provide evidence. IYour statements aren't evidence. I could assert that the moon actually is made of green cheese and His Noodliness keeps shaving it off and refilling it. Doesn't make it a fact.

And yes I know that several news stories began circulating the same thing. But history is revisionist when it comes to movies. If I see a dated article from 1995 or therabouts that says it, or an interview with Jackson before or during the making of LotR, then that is evidence. But news stories written about the upcoming release of the Hobbit that state this tired refrain aren't proof of anything except the gullibility of the media into buying the "official" story which looks and sounds good. That is all PR.

Well the story was that the distribution rights for the movie were not owned by the same person who owned the movie rights and that is why they decided to scrap the plans. Quite frankly it is difficult to find reliable sources from that far back, but I do remember hearing the announcement when I was a kid. I remember because I was actually reading The Hobbit at that time and was left waiting for the movie. Anyway, Peter Jackson's words are not proof given that the original director was going to be Del Toro.

The interesting thing RE: The Hobbit and LOTR is I had always heard the opposite, I seem to recall Tolkien being quoted as saying he had written the entire book of LOTR, and wanted to write something that could introduce people (particularly a younger audience) to that storyline. That was where There and Back Again came from, as far as I know.

Jackson was a producer even when Del Toro was a director. Do you really think he didn't want to direct it and sabotage Del Toro in the process? He actually announced that he had plans to do the Hobbit before taking on King Kong but New Line initially insisted he just produce/executive produce and hired Del Toro to direct.

@Laker's Fan - That is incorrect. The Hobbit was written for his kids then he started on Fellowship before WWII, but his time in the war changed his views and it can be seen in the sudden shift in tone in Fellowship when the grand adventure suddenly gets serious at the Prancing Pony. Before that, only one Nazgul was seen.

No, he wrote The Hobbit and started his outlines and work on Fellowship (which was to originally be one book, but his publisher insisted on breaking it up) while working at Pembroke College from 1925 until 1939. At the same time he wrote an essay on Beowolf.

After returning from working in intelligence doing codebreaking in WWII (1945), he took a position at Merton College in Oxford. It was there that he completed The Lord of the Rings.

And Yes, I have Tolkien's biography which I used to confirm the years in the post above, but I already knew the names of the places.

@KA....Is A New Hope a prequel to Empire Strikes Back?

@YCHTT.....Godfather Part II is roughly half backstory and after after story. My definition of flashback usually involves someone remembering. No is doing so visibly. As for Last Crusade, I said arguably. But the backstory of Godfather was pretty much all straight out of the book.

But in general, my point was that the two best scary movies of the late 70s and early 80s each had a prequel in the last 6 month and they were both just terrible, and I feel sullied for having watched them and allowed them into my memories.

So The Thing was a prequel, not a remake? I didn't bother seeing it becuase Carpenter's The Thing was just so incredible I figured I'd be disappointed by it.

Ah Star Wars, personally I think some of the later stuff would have been nicer as a movie than the prequel trilogy, seriously everybody loves Grand Admiral Thrawn!

@YCHTT.....The new movie ends with the Norwegian guys in the helicopter chasing the dog.

How could I forget Dumb and Dumberer?