Why did Tolkien dislike Disney?

[THE Ka]

This topic really caught me by surprise and is an interesting point.

I think another part of the difference is simply how Tolkien intended his work to be read and thought of and how Disney chose to narrate stories.

We are all rather familiar with how Tolkien wished his works to be thought and viewed of more as legend, as accounts of great deeds, trials, etc. that could be seen as happening in a far off age where specifics don't matter as much as messages and eternal themes do. Stories that survive for quite a long time specifically because what they tell and their core values.

Disney pulls a lot of its source material from fairy tales, most of its older works from Grim tales. Which, if anyone's read the original stories you know they are quite different from that of Disney's interpretation. I think what Tolkien might have seen from this is similar to what others have pointed out, the almost excess of humor at the sake of message until all of these tales meld into one.

Before anyone goes on a witch hunt saying that Tolkien does indeed have humor and songs in his work so he is only being a snob of comedy towards Disney, he doesn't do so at the sake of his tales' core themes. There is little difficulty for a child to read The Hobbit and both enjoy the humor and become enamored by the struggle of the characters, or the message.
If anything it's a balancing act of knowing that your work is for children, but like many very old traditional tales (in the way of legends) which usually you would tell a child because of the advice/message they carry.

Maybe looking at how Disney treated Grim's original works, Tolkien felt quite hesitant to hand over or entertain the idea of giving them access to his books.

... Which after seeing those sketches, I'd be saying a firm 'Heck no!' too.

[Galadriel55]

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?

I doubt it. A precious few of Tolkien's stories have a truly happy end, and even fewer have a definite end at all. Instead, they all seem to flow on, the end of one story becoming the beginning of another. Would Disney make a movie that has a somewhat sad ending... that's not really an ending? Can't imagine they would really make an effort with the endings here.

All the same, this is a pretty minor point that I just had a random thought about. I think the main issue is, as has been said numerous times already, the over-the-top humour and lack of depth.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?

I doubt it. A precious few of Tolkien's stories have a truly happy end, and even fewer have a definite end at all. Instead, they all seem to flow on, the end of one story becoming the beginning of another. Would Disney make a movie that has a somewhat sad ending... that's not really an ending? Can't imagine they would really make an effort with the endings here.

As originally conceived Bilbo Baggins experienced a storybook "happy ending".

[Bilbo] remained very happy to the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long.

The Hobbit

It was only when writing LOTR that Tolkien had to revise that somewhat, making the Ring a source of discontent and danger for Bilbo.

[Morthoron]

If Tolkien disliked Disney, just think how much he would utterly loathe Peter Jackson.

[Ardent]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?
...

Disney studios were fairly typical for film makers of the time. The happy ending is what people want so that is what is still mass produced. Tolkien's writings contain happy endings too but not sanitised like Disney or Hollywood. 'Closure' in real life is never so neat and tidy as 'ever after', and JRR reflects this.


I wonder what Tolkien had in mind when watching Disney films. If he was hoping for someone with the resources and creativity to adapt his stories I do not believe he'd have seen any film up to the standards needed. Even studios that had the financial resources did not have the directors who could resist the tampering of their backers, while those like Disney and Ray Harryhausen, who might have provided the effects, would have been every bit as disapointing in their handling of mythology.

If Tolkien disliked Disney perhaps it was the result of disappointment.

.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?

I doubt it. A precious few of Tolkien's stories have a truly happy end, and even fewer have a definite end at all. Instead, they all seem to flow on, the end of one story becoming the beginning of another.

Even in the dour F.A. there are a few, but the key word is that they are passing. Even Beren and Luthien's legacy intertwine with that of Hurin and Turin's tale, which compared to Disney's clean cut happily ever-afters, is quite the opposite.

Like others have mentioned, Tolkien had a firm grasp of how things like 'closure' are in reality. He repeatedly makes it keenly aware to the reader that yes, some of his characters will find happiness at the end of their tale, but this is far from everlasting. Sometimes one's happiness comes at a consequence to another, whether they know or even care at that point.

Also, the idea that you can't necessarily guard the fallout of anyone's actions upon others is something he visits time and time again. What he does offer is a plethora of responses to this based on the diversity of the nature of his characters. Something we as readers can take away with us and ponder over, or identify with.

Themes like this are about as close to a typical Disney plot anti-thesis as you can get. Even if a main character suffers/looses continuously throughout the narrative, there is always some climatic point where deux ex machina happens for the sake of a clean-cut happy ending that is rewarding to the audience.

Is this good for Disney? Yes, that is what they are known for and what audiences typically expect of them.
For Tolkien? Not very much at all, or at least, not very marketable to Disney (without them making severe changes of course).

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Is this good for Disney? Yes, that is what they are known for and what audiences typically expect of them.
For Tolkien? Not very much at all, or at least, not very marketable to Disney (without them making severe changes of course).

Makes you wonder (God forbid such a thing ever actually happen...) what a Disney adaptation of Tolkien's tales would look like. Beren and Lúthien is easy enough to imagine: they get married and live happily ever after, and if there's any hint of Lúthien's change of fate, it would be cast as completely romantic--not unlike Tangled--which, as far as THAT goes, would be an adaptation that I would not utterly hate... though I suspect Celegorm and Curufin would turn out to be in cahoots with Morgoth if they made it into the story at all, and Finrod likewise might not die... maybe not Draugluin or Thuringwethil either... and one wonders whether Mandos would appear at all.

Okay, "The Tale of Tinúviel" has problems, but it could be done, probably alone of Tolkien's tales (unless, say, you want to do Tuor's tale, but have it end when he gets the girl--you know, before the action of The Fall of Gondolin really begins). Just trying to IMAGINE a tale of Turin takes all sorts of mental gymnastics. Probably the ONLY thing you could keep from the incestastic ending is killing the dragon--no more dead Turin, dead Brandir, dead Nienor, certainly no Mrs. Nienor Turinswife. That means that Finduilas has to be the princess, so she's not dead, so that probably means no return to Dor-Lómin... and at this point it probably makes sense to either lose Nienor and Morwen completely or distort their story so much as to be unrecognisable. Same with Hurin--perhaps killing the dragon will result in him being freed, so that means the Nirnaeth is starting to look more like Smaug's Destruction of Dale.

I suppose there could be a Dwarf in the story, though....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just trying to IMAGINE a tale of Turin takes all sorts of mental gymnastics. Probably the ONLY thing you could keep from the incestastic ending is killing the dragon--no more dead Turin, dead Brandir, dead Nienor, certainly no Mrs. Nienor Turinswife. That means that Finduilas has to be the princess, so she's not dead, so that probably means no return to Dor-Lómin... and at this point it probably makes sense to either lose Nienor and Morwen completely or distort their story so much as to be unrecognisable. Same with Hurin--perhaps killing the dragon will result in him being freed, so that means the Nirnaeth is starting to look more like Smaug's Destruction of Dale.

Sssh! Don't give Peter Jackson any ideas.

[Lalwendë]

I'd recoil in horror at the traditional Disney take on a Tolkien story, though an impish part of me would quite like to see what Pixar could do with one of Tolkien's stories...

I think one of the big issues isn't particularly the 'look' of Disney animation, it's about how sanitised it is. The correct word is probably Bowdlerised. But, for the child viewer, much rewriting of stories is often necessary. The original AA Milne text of Winnie the Pooh is quite odd as I found when reading it aloud last year, but the Disney animations are acceptable. Another good example, though not a Disney interpretation is of Thomas the Tank Engine. The original books have some unpleasant stuff in them such as an engine being to all intents and purposes buried alive as punishment for being naughty. And there are numerous stories with serious or casual racism, cruelty, and dodgy values - even Narnia includes some attitudes I would not be happy for a child to take on board. What we deem as children's stories are not always suitable for kids.

The Hobbit itself has an authorial tone that's now quite jarring, though the content is mostly safe enough for school age children. However I feel Disney really would go to town on bowdlerising it. No trolls discussing boiling the Dwarves, or scary Gollum, and no really nasty spiders. Rather than Jackson's take which was to pick up and build on the action in the text, Disney would be more likely to pick up on 'silly' Elves and Dwarves - would the tra-la-la-lally be in there? Oh yes. With Katy Perry singing

Disney's not all bad at all, I can see that some stories do need to be altered for tiny ones to enjoy them. But some stories lose all their appeal when bowdlerised and The Hobbit would be one of them.

Of course, this is all assuming that a Disney adaptation would be animation, when we know they can also produce a cracking live action film (Pirates, anyone?). I wonder if Tolkien ever considered what a live action film might be like.

[Ardent]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

...Of course, this is all assuming that a Disney adaptation would be animation, when we know they can also produce a cracking live action film (Pirates, anyone?). I wonder if Tolkien ever considered what a live action film might be like.

There were plenty of live action Epics around in Tolkien's time. Gone with the Wind in 1939 and The Ten Commandments was released in 1956, the year after Return of the King was published. So there were studios with the resources to produce films of the scale required for LotR but I doubt he'd have been very impressed with the special effects. The face of Moses on The Mountain in DeMilles' film is hardly up to portraying the light actually coming from the person; when it is lit at all it's obviously from an outside source. That would miss the point that JRR wants to make in the transformation of Gandalf and Galadriel revealing an inner, otherwise veiled nature.

Some great leaps have been made in effects since then, and the scope of Star Wars is epic, but even in the wake of Lucas Films directorship continues to be tampered with by backers and editors. Seeing how much Bladerunner was interfered with, cutting vital scenes like the unicorn, I can well understand the need for artistic control being established before Tolkien estates gave the go ahead to producers.
Even in a live action film I think Disney studios would still have given us a chirpy Glorfindel and an 'oo da lally' Gandalf.