'The Hobbit was better than The Fellowship of the Ring *ducks for cover*'
Its not a prequel it was written first
Its not a prequel it was written first
All Prequels are Bad
- Thread starter sagacious
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I only mentioned The Fellowship of the Ring. Overall, the whole trilogy (I'm calling it that, although true Tolkienists would say that it's all one big book) is more epic and overall just better than The Hobbit.iain62a said:
In other words, The Two Towers and The Return of The King were better than The Hobbit, which was in turn better than The Fellowship of The Ring, due to its strange pacing and sometimes dull dialogue (that said, if I were to rate Fellowship, I'd definitely give it at least a 9)
But... The hobbit isn't a prequel. It came first. A prequel is a writing that takes place before an already established piece of writing. The hobbit came out in 37, and the Trilogy came out in the 50's.Clashero said:
Wrong. Two posts above you I proved this to you. The Hobbit was published in 37. The Lord of the Rings was published in the 50's. A prequel is only a prequel if it comes before a writing that has already been published. You can't start off with a prequel.gxs said:
Metal Gear Solid was better than Metal Gear Solid 3. Simple as that.
Zelda's timeline, if you choose to think it has one, is too convoluted. Apparently there is some sort of split where some games follow one path, and the others follow another. It's horseshit.
Zelda games are better interpreted as a tradition of legends (thus the name) which is why all the games tell the exact same story, and thus a timeline isn't necessary, thus there isn't any real sequels or prequels.
That being Said, The new Star Trek is apparently nothing like the original star trek, which means it is likely better than the originals.
Zelda's timeline, if you choose to think it has one, is too convoluted. Apparently there is some sort of split where some games follow one path, and the others follow another. It's horseshit.
Zelda games are better interpreted as a tradition of legends (thus the name) which is why all the games tell the exact same story, and thus a timeline isn't necessary, thus there isn't any real sequels or prequels.
That being Said, The new Star Trek is apparently nothing like the original star trek, which means it is likely better than the originals.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a prequel, it takes place a year before the Raiders of the Lost Ark
most prequels don't suck, there's tons that do and the only ones most ppl point to are the Star Wars movies, which is just people being "cool" by saying Lucas sucks
as for the Hobbit debate it is NOT a prequel, it was published well before the Lord of the Rings was, it was a story he told his kids actually
most prequels don't suck, there's tons that do and the only ones most ppl point to are the Star Wars movies, which is just people being "cool" by saying Lucas sucks
as for the Hobbit debate it is NOT a prequel, it was published well before the Lord of the Rings was, it was a story he told his kids actually
I enjoyed Tremors 4. Sure, it was not better than the original, but it was still a good movie.
...okay maybe not that good of a movie, quality wise, but for some reason I love all Tremors movies. So, if it was enjoyable, it was good.
...okay maybe not that good of a movie, quality wise, but for some reason I love all Tremors movies. So, if it was enjoyable, it was good.
A lot of Discworld and Sandman was written nonlinearly so that later books/issues took place earlier than the first book.
Well the story in Hobbit takes place when Bilbo is about the same age as Frodo so from my point of view hobbit is a prequel and it doesn't matter if it was written first or last. I look at the time period that the book is set in not the actual order of writing (because that would wreak havoc on some of the books I read).runtheplacered said:
