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".
That's wrong. "The Hobbit" was a prequel to the LOTR books that came later. Someone messed up when writing that review.
shareSomething 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
💯
shareYour 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.
THEY ARE RIGHT...NO OFFENSE TO THE BOOKS...BUT THE FILMS ARE A DIFFERENT ENTITY.
share