this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
218 points (99.1% liked)

RetroGaming

26155 readers
185 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam, AI slop, or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Xylinna@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gts@lemmy.world
218
We Won't Be Covering ModRetro Products Moving Forward (www.timeextension.com)
submitted 6 days ago by Eibriel@sopuli.xyz to c/retrogaming@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 58 points 6 days ago (1 children)

For some reason, the Tolkien estate had to tell paleontologists who nicknamed an homo species "hobbits" they had to stop doing so.

But a corporation is committing pure evil under the name "Palantir" or "Anduril" and, nevermind any kind of legal action, you can't even hear a strong word from the estate.

I guess some targets are easier than others.

[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 6 days ago (1 children)

From my understanding it was not the Tolkien Estate but the company SCZ?

This article was amended on 1 November 2012 because the first paragraph and a quotation from Dr Brent Alloway referred to the Saul Zaentz Company/Middle-earth Enterprises as "representatives of the Tolkien Estate". While the Saul Zaentz Company/Middle-earth Enterprises hold the film rights and some other rights to certain of JRR Tolkien's literary works including The Hobbit, they are not representatives of the Tolkien Estate. The Estate has also asked us to clarify that it was not approached concerning Dr Alloway's lecture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/30/hobbit-banned-prehistoric-hobbit

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 12 points 6 days ago

Hmm. Looks like it.

The wikipedia article on Homo floresiensis is wrong then. It quotes another article that says the lawyers were representing the Tolkien estate, but that article too was quoting Alloway, who apparently got it wrong. Unlike the Guardian they probably didn't bother to check and correct the article.