Where do you think the LOTR series would be today if Peter Jackson made The Hobbit before it? I don't think it would have worked out as well to be honest. I'm glad he's made the trilogy and then made the prequel(s).
I think the increased experience has given him the ability to make better films and trilogies! I'm glad he did it in the order he did, of course he thought this through beforehand!
I think the studio's wanted to gross more money out of it, that's why they made the decision. The books size relative to the movie doesn't make much sense, and I imagine they'll add some more things that weren't in the books too in the next films.
The Hobbit was good but as mentioned above, a trilogy is really milking it and the 3rd movie will probably only appeal to hardcode Tolkien fans. LOTR first was the best move by far as I think the Hobbit would have been much less successful and he probably wouldn't have got funding for LOTR.
The hobbit would have been an ideal animation film I feel to introduce the basis of LOTR to a family audience. If he made the Hobbit in the same style as a prequel it would never have done so well.
There's already a family-friendly animated version of The Hobbit - I don't think a new one would have made a splash. Jackson definitely made the right move by making the LOTR movies first, and his gamble to film them all at once turned out to be platinum. I was bewildered when I first heard they were splitting the prequal into three films, but after seeing the first part I understand. The book follows only Bilbo's part of the tale, and does not get involved with the other things going on when Gandalf leaves them, like the White Council and ousting the Necromancer from Mirkwood. Plus, I'm sure they'll find a way to drag the Battle of Five Armies out for at least 45 minutes on-screen. LOVE the casting of Bilbo & Thorin - thought both characters were portrayed perfectly in the first film.
I'm just glad that Peter Jackson and the writers involved elements of The Silmarillion. I wasn't sure what to expect walking into the first part of The Hobbit, since the book itself was so short. I think he pulled it off, though.
I don't know its possible he could of done the hobbit before but I think it suits it better as it is now with a game etc released for it, I am really wondering whether a game for the hobbit will be released would be excellent if it was the excitement would be extreme.
Unlike others I am glad they're doing 3 films for the Hobbit. That means three times the viewing pleasure for me. I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie and I can't wait for the next one, I'd say it rivaled the LOTR trilogy in pure entertainment value plus it had a lot of funny moments as well. I think they tried to make it a little more lighthearted than the LOTR trilogy and I appreciate the sentiment there.
I wish that Jackson would do a Middle Earth TV show. This could do extremely well and fill in many of the gaps between the Hobbit and LOTR as well as what happened after the Ring was destroyed.
I forgot to mention that I hope that Jackson does make the Silmarillion. I think it's necessary to diverge a little more on the Elves, who aren't covered much in either of the 2 current series.
Making a movie out of the Simarillion and completely covering every story and tale in that book, would take about 12 movies at the least. I don`t know if Jackson would be up to this monumental task, nor do I think anyone would.
I thik it would have worked out. Why would it come out different? Same universe, same type of characters, story continuation...
I've read The Hobbit but not the LOTR ones, it's just too long of a book for me. The Hobbit was a short read but I'm surprised and bit disappointed they're dragging the movie out by having 3movies out of a short book. Anyways, i think it wouldn't make much difference really. The order of which movies came out turns out perfectly okay and even if the Hobbit came out first, everything else is still the same.
I don't think it really makes all that much of a difference. Although, as others have said, I think the Hobbit into 3 movies is way too excessive. Won't say any spoilers, but didn't the 2nd movie end with only a small portion of the book left? Or am I remembering the end of the book wrong? Either way, most of the time, prequel movies are different story lines and only reference the future movies in certain ways and set a few plot points up. It's not needed to know the Hobbit to understand the LOTR trilogy.
To be fair, it isn't just the hobbit, its also other stories thrown in for good measure, although having said that there is a lot of filler material. Even so, it's all quality content and better than most movies.
I have tried to look at The Hobbit as a seperate entertainment experience so I can still enjoy the movies. I love the actors in the story, but I haven't loved all of Peter Jackson's Hobbit version. Part of what was so great about LotR, was that Jackson was true to the story, and that just hasn't been the case in The Hobbit. Truth be told, there wasn't enough story for a trilogy and he's had to make some of it up. If I had seen The Hobbit before LotR, I wouldn't be as excited about it.
If they did the Hobbit movies first, i don't think the LOTR movies would've gotten the same response from the public as it had before. I've read the Hobbit book twice and i really loved it, it's such a short book though and i think 3 movies was going overboard. It's just too much.
You cannot really compare The Hobbit movies to LOTR. The scale is much less epic, and the actors are also not as top-notch as they were in the LOTR movies. I think if PJ did The Hobbit first, he would not have had nearly the same level of fame and success that he does now.