More thematic exploration vs. allegory. Tolkien despised direct allegory. He thought Lewis went too far with allegory in his works. He was very conscious of influences on him and his works but he would avoid allegory on purpose.
Except for the massive influence his experience of mechanised war had on LotR which shone through in the Uruk-hai.
If you'd like more Aragorn I'd suggest you check out The Hunt for Gollum, a Tolkien Enterprises approved 2009 fan film of high quality and ratings, based on the appendices of LotR.
I don't remember the Uruk-hai using machine guns, tanks, artillery or chlorine gas. Even if they did, that wouldn't be allegory.
The Uruk-hai were an allegory for the mass-production of (perceived) lower quality items as a result of the industrial revolution. And the destruction of the Ent forests by them was also an allegory for the industrial revolution.
I must have missed the part were the Uruks rode tanks into battle and threw mustard gas bombs into Minas Tririth. And also the part were any battle in any part of the Lord of the Rings resembled the horror of trench warfare. You know that in the book the Uruks are born and grow up like all other folks in Middle Earth and aren't mass produced out of slime beneath Isengard, right? That was purely a movie invention.
The problem is, these comments are virtually never laser focused (e.g., "I disapprove of the changes and wish we received a live-action adaptation truer to the source."); no...there's usually a lot of right-wing ideology - be it innuendo or completely blatant messaging - thrown into the mix.
They did deploy gunpowder (although not specifically mentioned by name) made by Saruman, resulting in an immense amount of humans getting blown up (presumably to their deaths) or horribly maimed, at the very least, when it was discharged to breach the walls of Helms Deep. While definitely not mechanized like tanks and vehicles, that is definitely a product of the modern industrial age (I don't want to get into a debate about its ancient Chinese origins, BTW - I know that) and a pretty brutal experience if you put yourself in the boots of the characters that were red-shirted in that attack.
Which doesn't make it an allegory. Allegory is symbolic language to represent something else, usually directly. Saying that war is horrible in Middle Earth is an allegory for war is horrible in WW1 is not quite what that means, at least my reading of it. Tolkien preferred to avoid direct allegory, i.e. having a Christ figure, Sauron as Stalin, etc.
You can make gunpowder from sulphur, charcoal, and saltpetre. You don't need modern industry to obtain or process the ingredients. The Chinese invented it in the 9th century, I believe.
True, however, it was not mass-produced and widely used until the industrial age, and for the purposes of war (especially with the transition from black powder to smokeless cordite) - something that Tolkien was quite vocally bringing attention to. The gunpowder in-and-of-itself was not specifically allegorical, but a small piece of the greater allegory of war and industrialization, including mass-production and mass-deforestation (Isengard) to perpetuate that industrialization. All these things were major issues with Tolkien, which is very well-documented.
I know that quite well. It's one of my qualms with the original movies, but you're taking it too literally.
Ha. I recall arguing in favour of that very point with someone fifty years ago so I can't gainsay that Tolkien did let social commentary slip into his work. I do wonder what this series will offer in terms of subliminal social commentary. It will likely annoy those who want to be annoyed. I doubt Annatar/Sauron will be a thinly disguised Jeff Bezos though.
First line of the article and I completely disagree with it: Tolkien literally avoided a Jesus figure because he felt he could not possibly recreate what he considered to be the greatest story. So, if there is allegory it is read in to it, rather intentional by the writer. Themes, yes. Allegory, not as much.
Tolkien opined in a letter that while they were good friends (shared interests and the like) their respective works were often outside of each other's interests in terms of what they wanted in a story. But, they were good at encouraging each other to write the type of stories they wanted to read.
I came across this stupid article that used some innocuous quotes about inclusiveness from actors and/or writers from the series as "proof" that they are deliberately destroying Tolkien's source material, or some such rubbish. The leaps in logic in nearly every paragraph beggared belief. I tried to find the thing again, but I couldn't (thankfully). I believe it was a comic book-focused site, and the writer was the site's webmaster. Kor
Apparently, Tolkien really disliked Dune, mostly for its allegorical themes I suspect and perhaps also because of its cynical view of humanity's inherent nature to follow messianic leaders into mass destruction.
While I'm probably talking out of my ass here, I suspect Tolkien might have also had an issue with the egregious use of drugs (spice) for multiple cultures of people to attain higher consciousness and power starship jumps. I wonder what he would have thought of Naked Lunch...