Dan Brown writes: Let’s get one thing straight: The Hobbit is not a prequel.

By this point, you’ve probably heard about the much-delayed big-screen project.

Based on the 1937 fantasy novel by J.R.R. Tolkien, it is being adapted into two motion pictures by Kiwi filmmaker Peter Jackson. Jackson is the director whose Lord of the Rings trilogy grossed roughly a kazillion dollars and prompted nerdgasms around the world.

Since Jackson’s Hobbit will be released nearly a decade after his last LOTR installment, but is set in an earlier period of Middle Earth history, it has been described in online news reports as a prequel, giving rise to sentences such as these: *In a statement released by his production company 3foot7 Ltd, director Peter Jackson said that “despite some delays, we are fully back on track and excited to get started” with regards to the highly anticipated two-part Lord of the Rings prequel (from E! Online) More..


  1. Quicktidal

    The very fact that Brown even made a post about this is laughable. This is NOT news.

    Basically it’s like this. Where is the oxford PRINTED dictionary definition of “prequel”? What’s that? There isn’t one?

    The word was invented for the Star Wars prequels, simply to help discern that the story takes place prior to the original trilogy and not after.

    Therefore the word, is simply a tool in which to define a story or film that takes place prior to the events of the story or film that already exists.

    Hobbit book fans know it was written first, and to newbies it doesn’t matter beyond telling them it takes place earlier in middle earth.

    What a silly use Brown’s and London Free Press’ time, proving to folk that he can’t dissect a new film term to save his life.

    Sigh. News is not news anymore.

    • “a story or film containing events which precede those of an existing work…”


      1970s in origin. Isn’t that a bit early to be Star Wars-related?

      • Quicktidal

        that’s not printed. That’s online. Therefore it’s origin is dubious.

        That said, the definition you quote applies to The Hobbit as it will stand in the film series. It will behave as prequel to “previously existing movies”.

        End of story.

        • Anonymous

          It’s published “online” by Oxford Dictionaries, I think it’s safe to trust its origin. It’s not as if it was posted in some blog or forum.

  2. Sorry, but the story is actually wrong. As a book, The Hobbit is indeed not a prequel. However, as a movie, it decidedly is.

  3. Anonymous

    Well the reality is The Hobbit was originally a stand alone story, the publishers wanted a sequel to it and Tolkien offered the Silmarillion but the publishers wanted more Hobbits and probably more on the figures from the The Hobbit.So to this end Tolkien wrote the LOTR Trilogy as follow up or sequel to the stand alone The Hobbit. However this caused a few problems with the original Hobbit story as printed in 1937 so Tolkien changed it to fall into line with the LOTR in in 1951 and 1966 and by doing so Tolkien himself made the once stand alone Hobbit into a prequel to the trilogy and further expanded the story which can be found in Unfinished Tales.


    Umm…I know this has nothing to do with anything but I just wanted to say how REALLY REALLY glad I am that the person who wrote this article said that the Lord of the Rings made a kazillion dollars!!!!!!!!!!! IT’S TRUE!!!!!!!! I’m tired of hearing people say, ohh Lord of the Rings made a 500 million or a cople billion. NO!!! LotR made a kazillion trillion billion!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAYYYYYYY more then dumb Harry Potter!!!! Is that even the name of those movies?!?! LOL!!

  5. I think some people are forgetting that the two Hobbit movies will contain material written specifically for the movies and not based on any previously published Tolkien work. So in that sense, the movies can be considered prequels based on the original material. But in a sense it is all semantics. The fact is that the Jackson movie version of the Hobbit is being released after the movie version of the Lord of the Rings. It has the same feeling as a prequel would. We all know what will happen. We all know the ending. So it’s really all about the telling of the story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *