banana500 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
Necromaster wrote:
Well, Gimli is the son of Gloin. And the ring is really important. And there is the Necromancer/Sauron in Dol Goldur. That's three ways, I think, other than the fact that it's set in the same world.The Necromancer isn't even in the book, though...?
And I think there's lots of connections as well as the aforementioned, especially recurring characters (Gandalf, Bilbo, Elrond, Gollum).Tolkien pretty much had the whole thing planned out from the start. He wrote The Hobbit with LOTR in mind, even though he did write The Hobbit first. So technically, it is not a prequel, LOTR is a sequel.
I read the Note from the Author or whatever and I think he said he just "decided to use the ring as the connecting point" when he chose to write a sequel so wouldn't that mean he didn't plan it all?
Offline
dav99 wrote:
banana500 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
The Necromancer isn't even in the book, though...?
And I think there's lots of connections as well as the aforementioned, especially recurring characters (Gandalf, Bilbo, Elrond, Gollum).Tolkien pretty much had the whole thing planned out from the start. He wrote The Hobbit with LOTR in mind, even though he did write The Hobbit first. So technically, it is not a prequel, LOTR is a sequel.
I meant main things that connect. The Necromancer is mentioned in the Hobbit, when Gandalf explains why he was gone during part of the book. Though, the story of what happened to Gandalf with the Necromancer was not explained in the Hobbit, it will be in the movie. Lastly, The Lord of the Rings is not a sequel to the Hobbit because, again, they are completely original and different stories. I do agree with you, though, that the Hobbit was used to set up The Lord of the Rings.
-To banana500, veggieman001, and Necromaster
It is a sequel though. Based on events in The Hobbit, it's events following it. It was written as the sequel, too. (@ jukyter: actually, he hadn't written it yet)
Offline
Mokat wrote:
Hardmath123 wrote:
What do other nerds think?
MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just sort of cringed when I read it.
Offline
Oh, so now you're just discriminating against le nerds.
EDIT: actually, it should be des nerds, but that would ruin the effect.
Last edited by Hardmath123 (2013-01-16 05:30:59)
Offline
Hardmath123 wrote:
Oh, so now you're just discriminating against le nerds.
EDIT: actually, it should be des nerds, but that would ruin the effect.
What?
No. I'm "nerdy" but I just
it's a strange word that I don't like using!
Like having that be how you refer to yourself is awkward.
(and there was no effect with the le, just remove the French entirely)
Offline
luiysia wrote:
well I started the silmarillion but really did anyone here actually read that all the way through
I did. How I did is something of a mystery.
Offline
veggieman001 wrote:
dav99 wrote:
banana500 wrote:
Tolkien pretty much had the whole thing planned out from the start. He wrote The Hobbit with LOTR in mind, even though he did write The Hobbit first. So technically, it is not a prequel, LOTR is a sequel.
I meant main things that connect. The Necromancer is mentioned in the Hobbit, when Gandalf explains why he was gone during part of the book. Though, the story of what happened to Gandalf with the Necromancer was not explained in the Hobbit, it will be in the movie. Lastly, The Lord of the Rings is not a sequel to the Hobbit because, again, they are completely original and different stories. I do agree with you, though, that the Hobbit was used to set up The Lord of the Rings.
-To banana500, veggieman001, and NecromasterIt is a sequel though. Based on events in The Hobbit, it's events following it. It was written as the sequel, too. (@ jukyter: actually, he hadn't written it yet)
it was a couple of years after the hobbit was published
i think i got this from the foreword to my copy of the hobbit
Offline
maxskywalker wrote:
luiysia wrote:
well I started the silmarillion but really did anyone here actually read that all the way through
I did. How I did is something of a mystery.
I heard it was like trying to read the Bible all the way through for fun.
Offline
Just got one thing to say, y'all
Dune was harder
Last edited by dontbombiraq (2013-01-16 15:49:00)
Offline