Should it have been made before LOTR?

[Saruman]

There are various factors suggesting that it may have been better to make a movie of the Hobbit before LOTR:

It would give movie goers a similar experience to those who read the books; w read the Hobbit when we are 9-ish, and LOTR when we are 11-ish (on average).
It would be chronologically correct.
The Hobbit may disappoint those who, after seeing LOTR, wish to see blood and gore.
It would have increased the knowledge of, and simpathy for, the dwarves, before we see their primary civilisation tragically destroyed in FOTR.

[Mirkgirl]

I read LotR when I was 9-ish and TH around 14 or more and I survived ;)
I've got to admit you have a point, BUT - in the movie case the money decide and not the chronology and stuff... the Hobbit will at no rate make a veeery exciting and attractive movie at least nowhere near the success of LotR.. and after seeing it almost no one'd like to give money for more of the same. Including the ones who give the money for the movie to be made. Now after everyone (well almost) loves LotR that'd forgive the more 'simple' plot of TH.

[Harlow]

i agree with Mirk... for some reason i think the Hobbit is more for the fans than anything.... and anyway the Hobbit is very diferent from LOTR... its a kids book so its not as dark or action filled (although the Battle of Five Armies would be completely impressive) and i think might've put people off the LOTR... and not as many elves!!!

[Faramir]

Yeah, but Mirkwood, i hope, would still be creepy as hell in a movie.

[Periantari Andruil]

For some reason, i do not think it'll appeal as much as LotR... i loved the Hobbit too but LotR definitely left more of an impresion on me. But then again I read the Hobbit before watching the movie which is not the case for LotR...
No, i think LotR coming first is a good idea because it just has so much, so much depth, so many characters, so much everything.

[Wamdue]

The Hobbit isn't as epic as LOTR, plus there is no one to fill the 'hot guy' quotient. Unless, of course, you stick orlando Bloom in there somewhere.

[Periantari Andruil]

lol ...yeah imagine Bilbo being the stud muffin here lol
no we'll have all the dwarves be cast as some really hot actors lol all with BEARDS!!!! lol

[Mirkgirl]

Originally posted by wamdue
The Hobbit isn't as epic as LOTR, plus there is no one to fill the 'hot guy' quotient. Unless, of course, you stick orlando Bloom in there somewhere. No doubt Mr. Bloom would be in the movie... he's Thranduil's son after all... just wasn't thought of at the time The Hobbit was written

[Fëalossë]

Ha! It wouldn't surprise me if they did put him in somewhere. You can make lots of money off of star-struck teenage girls. lol roflmao

[Saruman]

If so, he should be drunk. lol

[Amithrellas]

lol That should work perfectly well, Saruman. The Elves in The Hobbit spent most of their time "making merry", didn't they?

[Astaroth]

I guess the order is not very important, my case im reading FOTR, as I will read LORT and Im eager to read the hobbit to know more bout LORT. Well movies case, think that the hobbit will tell as more great histories, maybe it wont have a great impact as ROTK but it would be a nice movie

[Prince Faramir]

Oh yes, The Hobbit shoul have been the first because now we already have seen the BEST: LOTR.
:) Anyway I´m waiting to see The Hobbit :) , OK, then we will say We already saw LOTR.

[Mithrandir]

I think it should although is a prequel an had nothing to do with LOTR it will be good to do this is chronological order. Is just me;)

[HobbitFriend]

Originally posted by Mirkgirl

I've got to admit you have a point, BUT - in the movie case the money decide and not the chronology and stuff... the Hobbit will at no rate make a veeery exciting and attractive movie at least nowhere near the success of LotR.. and after seeing it almost no one'd like to give money for more of the same. Including the ones who give the money for the movie to be made. Now after everyone (well almost) loves LotR that'd forgive the more 'simple' plot of TH.
I agree... I doubt The Hobbit would have been as great a success as LotR was, and LotR might not have even been filmed after that. Now that LotR did so well, however, the movies have picked up a whole bunch of fans (even if they are just the movie fans), so that almost guarantees that The Hobbit will be another box office hit. Not as big as LotR, of course, but still, the LotR fans will go to see The Hobbit just because they liked LotR so much.

Also, after having seen LotR, people will see people and places from LotR in The Hobbit and go, "Hey! It's Gandalf!" and "Isn't that Rivendell?" or "There's Gollum!!" If you think about it, there are many people and places in LotR that show up in The Hobbit, and it's always exciting to see more of something you like. There is The Shire (of course ;) ), Rivendell, the Trolls, Gollum (who is now practically a celebrity himself -- and i'm not talking about Andy Serkis, either! lol ~ but i do hope he does Gollum's voice again!), Elrond, Gandalf, and Bilbo. Not to mention the Eagles and the map of The Lonely Mountain ;) So people are already familliar with all of that. (I'm getting excited just thinking about it! ooo i really hope PJ does it!!!)

[Roxanne Elessar]

I think that, and I think I remember them saying it somewhere in interviews or something, that they didn't know if Lord of the Rings would actually come out so successful, and so they probably wouldn't have made the Hobbit, because it would have been less of a hit or something. I would adore for them to make The Hobbit, because it's just an amazing story! And the Riddles in the Dark sequence would be so cool! That was my favourite chapter in the book. I think it would be really cool, fight scenes or not. But probably less people would have gone to see it, and if it wasn't so great, probably wouldn't have gone to see LotR afterwards, like Mirkgirl said.

[Herenyë]

Think about Star Wars of a minute.... Star wars was off track and look how successful it is... heehee.... i think its better if it came after LotR.... so yea...

[Mirkgirl]

hush... let's hope that the hobbit won't be like the new SW!

[Bregalad]

*shudders*... i can't imagine what a disappointment that would be if The Hobbit is going to be of that calibre...

I am definitely going to see The Hobbit if it is made. I think it's a good idea for it to be coming out after LotR, because, as a previous poster mentioned, it's a good chance for fans like us to revisit the various locations of Middle-Earth, as well as see some of the LotR characters when they were younger (although the Elves would be much the same...). Whereas if it had been made before LotR, people would more probably judge LotR by the less adult nature of The Hobbit, instead of seeing it as a more mature entity.

[Miriel Baggins]

Well, I voted 'No.' Then I read Saruman's first post, which contains his reasons for thinking it should've been made first. All of which are good points. But I think I still would say, I'm glad LR came first. I agree with what Bregalad said: If The Hobbit had come out first, LR would have drawn a completely different crowd --- or not much of a crowd at all. And, besides, many people actually read LR first (my Mom included), and say it was a great experience, and The Hobbit really enriched their knowledge and so forth. :)

[Onilalle]

i agree

[Elentari]

I'd say they definitely needed the epic of the Trilogy to come first, as a sensational draw at the box office. A prequel is often done, though doesn't always turn out well. In this case, we have been through the doom of the world with our beloved characters, and emerged victorious, though at a price. One comment I hear often by those who have not been Tolkien fans all along, is that they preferred the first movie to the others, because it was the 'happiest' of the three. (A relative term, I know!)

Viewers might then be accepting of another film which promises them both another glimpse of the beloved Shire, (also Rivendell, Dale, Mirkwood, Thranduil's Hall...) and adventure which is still quite exciting. There are trolls, spiders, and imagine that lot chasing after the ever-disappearing Elves in Mirkwood? (Perhaps Orlando will have a role after all! And can you imagine? Now we'd have new Elves - Thranduil and his household! Be still my heart!!) There would be the 'barrels out of bond' adventure, and of course Smaug and the Lonely Mountain. Then there's the town of Dale, which we haven't seen on screen before, and the attack of said town by Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies, not to mention Gollum and the Riddle Game.....oh, I think the Hobbit could be made adventurous enough!!

After seeing all three films, and having been immersed in reading the Trilogy all during that time, I went back this year and read the Hobbit, which I had not done for some time. I had exactly the same experience which Hobbit friend has mentioned on this thread: each recognized person and place was greeted with a thrill of recognition, and also not a little sadness, thinking of where they started and what they came to in the end. It was more of an enjoyable read than I'd ever had before! I'm also reasonably certain that PJ could produce a wonderful tale for the screen, fleshing out the more 'fluffy' areas; like the Elves in Rivendell; I can really see them being very jovial and singing and joking; after all, the Shadow has not yet grown again in the world, and the Elves are not quite so close to the fading time. Can you imagine what that would be like? And perhaps he can keep the Elves in Thranduil's realm from sounding so mean. :elf:

A Hobbit movie? We can only hope!
Elentari

[Ecthelion]

I think that they needed the trilogy to draw the crowds and then the Hobbit is more...Hmmm... of an enjoyable fairy tale rather than this epic battle story.

[Baggins]

Wouldn't PJ have to re-make the Shire? :(

[Miriel Baggins]

Ooh, I bet he would have to. That would be great, 'cause then I'd have a chance to see it! :grin: :p It seems like there's a lot of stuff they'd have to rebuild and resurrect from forgotten piles of props, etc. But I think it'd be definitely worth it.

[ImDaMom]

My chief concern about having the Hobbit first is that it is much more a children's story. Had they made that first, and it was successful, too many people would imagine LOTR to be for younger audiences, and there would have been considerable pressure to have LOTR written more to appeal to the Hobbit crowd. NOT what we would have wanted. LOTR is better, imho, as a first film as it really "gets you into" Middle Earth, the characters, and their eventual fates.

[Silverbridge]

At first I thought it mattered...but now it doesn't. I just want to stand in line for hours and buy my tickets, stand in line for hours to get a good seats later that evening, watch it and love it, get the soundtrack, wait for the DVD, buy the DVD, wait for the EE DVD, finally getting the EE DVD and watch every weekend.

Also, I would watch it on t.v. like Ian McKellen suggested, an hour long episode each week for a year. I'd also buy "that" on DVD and be the happiest person on earth!

[Shieldmaiden]

I think that it was better for LotR to have been released before the Hobbit, for the same reasons that others have already mentioned. :) You need to draw people (non-bookies) in...and one good way to do that is to put lots and lots of super-cool battles (if you want to put it really simply)!

I hope that PJ directs it! Really, to have the same feeling that I've felt anticipating each part of LotR again? The feeling of waiting and counting down and then finally being able to experience it? I agree with Silverbridge...waiting in line, getting the soundtrack, the extended edition, even just all the hype...That would be awesome. :thumbs: