Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit

[Nuka-sama]

The other day, I saw a trailer for the Hobbit movie, and it looked quite amazing. If I am to understand correctly, the Hobbit is a prequel to the Lord of the The Rings Trilogy. The thing is, I have never seen any of the Lord of the Rings Movies, and I have little to no idea what happens. So my question is, should I watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy now (a series of movies I've wanted to watch) OR should I wait till the Hobbit comes out, and THEN watch the Lord of the Rings movies?

Your help is appreciated

 

[NickyJ]

I recommend watching LOTR. It would probably help clear any questions left by the Hobbit.

 

[Leifmk]

Prequel, schmequel. The book was written quite some time before LOTR, and is more of a children's story (if you read LOTR you can see some signs early on that it started life as a pretty straightforward sequel to The Hobbit; the tone shifts and becomes a bit more adult as the book goes on).

I gather this movie version will be fleshing out a few things that happen offstage and are only referred to indirectly (if at all) in the books, tying the stories a bit closer together. You pretty much can't go wrong watching the movies in whatever order, I guess.

 

[Plotinus]

Obviously when the Lord of the Rings films were made they did not anticipate that they would get to make a film of the Hobbit too. They were made to stand alone and not require knowledge of the Hobbit. They have been hugely successful and much loved by many people despite a film of the Hobbit not yet existing. So I would certainly not hold back from watching them just because the prequel is not yet out.

Look at it this way - you are in the highly enviable position of being able to watch all the Rings films without having to wait a year between them, and without having to wait nearly a decade for the prequel.

 

[CivCube]

What Plotinus said. Kind of a weird situation but I always go with order of release. The director's train of thought will always be somewhat different further down the road, including Peter Jackson's.

 

[Glassfan]

Read the Books.

 

[Dirk_Diggler]

Read the books, watch LOTR, then watch the Hobbit when it comes out.

 

[classical_hero]

Read the Books.

I tried to, but they were too boring. Too many poems in there. Also I am a more visual person, so me seeing things is better than reading things.

 

[NickyJ]

I recommend the movie, then the books. It helps give you a better idea of the creatures in the book.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I much prefer watching a film before reading the book, if I get the choice: that way I'm less disappointed with what they had to take out, and get more of an insight into what I just watched.

As for the OP, definitely watch the LotR films at the first opportunity. It's not necessary to have read the Hobbit to understand the Lord of the Rings. Any backstory is literally explained in the first five or so minutes.

 

[Quackers]

I tried to, but they were too boring. Too many poems in there. Also I am a more visual person, so me seeing things is better than reading things.

Disappointed in you CH. They are really good books and if you don't like the poems you can literally skip them because they really aren't that essential to the story.

 

[Ajidica]

I tried to, but they were too boring. Too many poems in there. Also I am a more visual person, so me seeing things is better than reading things.

My rule of thumb is just to skip to the Council of Elrond in The Fellowship and just start from there. You miss some stuff involving Gildor Inglorion and Glorifindel, but after that the Fellowship picks up quite a bit.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I think the Bible is literally true, but LotR is a bit boring.

 

[Plotinus]

Salman Rushdie said it best: the LOTR films are better than the book because Peter Jackson is a better film director than Tolkien was a novelist. Of course he was being deliberately provocative but there is an element of truth to it.

 

[GoodGame]

Read the Books.

This! It's a very easy, enjoyable read. Referring to The Hobbit, actually.

 

[Leifmk]

This! It's a very easy, enjoyable read. Referring to The Hobbit, actually.

That statement is certainly more true of The Hobbit than of The Lord of the Rings. I think I am like many other lifelong fans of the latter, in that I came across it when I was still too young to really have a solid expectation about what a novel should be like.

 

[Leoreth]

Salman Rushdie said it best: the LOTR films are better than the book because Peter Jackson is a better film director than Tolkien was a novelist. Of course he was being deliberately provocative but there is an element of truth to it.

That would be true if LotR's selling point had ever been its plot and its execution, it isn't. It's the depth and complexity of its setting, and the story is just an excuse to experience the setting. Unfortunately, that's the aspect of LotR that got neglected the most in the movies, especially the last two. Don't get me wrong, the movies are still good in their own right, but I think this description misses the point.

 

[Optical]

As a New Zealander, I can recommend watching LotR first.

Incidentally, The Hobbit premieres on my sixteenth birthday.

 

[classical_hero]

And never been kissed?

 

[alanmills90]

I didn't Find the Trailer to be much interesting but I adored the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I can't wait for The Hobbit.