Name a Vulpera Robin, and one Marion.
i think my final solution will involve the dreaded use of accents
a terrible fate
EDIT: Even âLombaxâ is taken smh
Sokka is clearly Malfurion.
âMy girlfriend turned into the Dark Moon.â
âThatâs rough, buddy.â
2 Likes
He wields a sword forged from ore he discovered from a meteor.
Colloquially called the space sword.
Iâll use what is the best, but I donât mean to cause offence.
but we do have to remember, that the LOTR, as a setting, was more focused on the current happenings, like when the Witch King took over the fortresses of Arnor, like when Galadriel brought DolâGuldor down with Nenya, like when Frodo and Sam leave the Shire and the fear they have when Khamul almost catches them. I was scared for those guys, when I first watched that.
Tolkien was very religious, but I think separating out his christian beliefs was a wiser move, as they had a bit more time to get the core parts of the story fleshed out.
Then we go into the underlying meanings, which was hinted at. The war between Gondor and Harad. Men fighting men and how pointless it was because neither side achieved anything of value. That is very big sticking stone for me.
1 Like
I assume you didnât mean to offend - which is why I point it out. : )
(Tone is hard to get across on the internet argh)
1 Like
Youâre not following x3, it has nothing to do with the books and movies. I am talking about the movie called âTolkienâ, which was meant to be a story about his -life- IRL, not tied to the books, but what kind of person he was. His upbringing, his wife, the war etc. It is in -that- movie that they made -zero- refference to his religious believes.
Sorry, weâre talking cross purposes.
I thought you meant the LOTR didnât present his religious and christian beliefs.
1 Like
Yeah I get you, and from that point, I agree that it wasnt needed, it was still reflected. But in a movie about Tolkien, the man.
Then it felt weird it wasnt there.
The woes of art needing to make money (by avoiding âcontroversial topicsâ like religion) under capitalism strike again
1 Like
But as you say, itâs a complex issue and I have no doubt, the Tolkien family had some input into this.
Above all else, they would not have wanted his legacy to be ruined.
I donât approve of people hating on folks of his nature, when they are dead and they canât defend themselves. Itâs why I took issue with the idiots who protested and chanted âthe witch is deadâ at Margaret Thatcherâs funeral.
Much like how Bohemian Rapsody, while entertaining, was a very âSafeâ movie compared to what it was meant to show of Freddy Mercuryâs life and persona.
True, but I feel like it is kinda stepping on his legacy by pretending like a part of his life which was quite huge for him and shaped who he was and what he wrote, didnât exist at all.
It basically removes a part of him from memory and makes a story about another person.
But religion as a whole is controversial in this day and age. Should it beâŚI donât know?
They had to be âsafeâ as this was the man who gave the world the entertainment that was the Middle Earth universe.
Without him, I wouldnât be blasting the game, Battle for Middle Earth, right now 
Iâm mostly being facetious by blaming capitalism. Mostly.
The real reason is that to make a biopic you usually need the person and/or estate the pic is about to be on-side. That means you have to portray the film in a very particular way - and often avoid talking about real events which they would prefer you not mention.
Likely Tolkein is some combination of both.
1 Like
Actually googling a little, the choice wasnt from his family at all, and they were part of the criticism aimed at the movie. The choice was from the director himself because according to him, he had âdifficultyâ portraying his religion and it didnt click with test screening audience.
So basically a safe money choice, which was -alot- what Tolkien oposed himself. So more of a slap in the face of his legacy.
Maybe it shouldnât have been made in the first place, then? Or perhaps, the drive for the film was more about what drove him to write the Lord of the Rings?
I donât know.
I love studying his writing, because as many have said, outside of the War, Tolkien was an excellent linguist and loved language.
1 Like
Well, as I wrote too, the Estate also criticsed the film. And his children have also spoken alot about his life, and his religion being important to him. Tolkien was basically in the belief that âItâs a big part of my life, but if it isnt for others, thatâs not a problem at all. Love and respect.â
And it shaped alot of his work, his daily life, his views on things and attitude in both his proffesor job and everything else. So not even reffrencing it at all seems kind of insulting on him.
The movie barely mentions the books, the drive behind it was to display his life to better show who he was as a person outside of his writing.
If movies made for no reason other than to cash in werenât made in the first place, I imagine weâd get about⌠95% fewer films made a year.
A good thing in some respects, certainly. But I have enjoyed some films that were more about profit than a burning desire to see the story on screen.