The most convincing argument for a Muppet version of The Lord of the Rings

If you're anything like me, the phrase "Muppets' Lord of the Rings" should be an instant dopamine trigger. You don't need to hear anything more; you're sold. And yet, this brilliantly concept has still not manifested in our reality.

This is a travesty, but its one that writer Amelia Tait is determined to remedy. Over at The Face, Tait makes the (highly-detailed) case for a Muppet Lord of the Rings movie. And if you weren't already convinced by the words "Muppet Lord of the Rings," well, the rest of it should change your mind:

 What is Rizzo but a second breakfast-loving hobbit with furry feet? Kermit the Frog and Frodo Baggins are halflings that are one and the same. Fozzie is a steadfast companion who ain't been droppin' no eaves. Beaker and Legolas are both long and thin.

While Rowlf the Dog clearly can and should play Gandalf's grey and white, my argument for a Pepe the King Prawn Gandalf begins and ends thus: ​"There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will, okay?"

Gonzo and Rizzo should clearly be cast as Merry and Pippin, though I'll accept debate regarding who's who. On the one hand, Gonzo is totally a Palantír-nabbing fool of a Took. On the other, I'd like to see Rizzo sing sadly to Denethor (stop typing about how this isn't in the book, that juicy tomato had cinema's greatest supporting role). 

Naturally, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew will play Gimli to Beaker's Legolas, Sam the Eagle must be Boromir ("It is a gift to the foes of America!"), Animal shall be Gollum, Sweetums shall be Treebeard, and Aragorn shall be played by Viggo Mortensen who, if needs must, shall be kidnapped against his will.

This casting breakdown is but a fraction of the delight that awaits within the full article.

The case for the Muppet Lord of the Rings [Amelia Tait / The Face]