The Royal Janitor has morphed into a Tinkerbelle like cartoon – for adults! I am incorporating Tolkien, Harry Potter, James Bond, and the Hippie Movement to make a truly Magical Book and Movie. Some people have compared me to Walt Disney. I have plans in the wing to create a Creative Hollywood Dynastic Cosmology around my kindred, Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, and, the Getty family who are sick of how they are depicted in movies. Liz has gotten bad press. What the world needs is a Secular Union of Creative People who will be more than Goodwill Ambassadors. We need to take our people off the two-dimensional silver-screen and have them walk about the earth, altering it in beautiful and constructive ways.
Trump is Bad Disney, who hates the earth and is backed by co-terrorist who pray for the Great Tribulation and Rapture, that will not happen as John Darby described. Something like the Rapture will occur at the end of my movie. I call it ‘The Gathering’ that is based upon scientific solutions to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth without a billion people, and millions of children, perishing via a hideous death. Why?
Jim Carry is rendering cartoons to counter the one facebook is still finding, drawn by fake Trolls in Russia. The Royal Janitor aims to help destroy Russian Trolls, and attract Russians that being harassed and oppressed by the Dark Putin. Tolkien’s character should be employed to this end, also.
Tolkien went to see Disney’s Snow White, and had trouble with the illustration. The work of Eyvind Earle, hung in the Rosamond Gallery in Carmel. I suggest my kin, Elizabeth Rosemond be employed as a figure head in the New Renaissance I see on the horizon. Snow White Looks like Liz when she was young.
In fact, Tolkien mostly hated Disney’s creations, and he made these feelings very clear. Snow White debuted only months after The Hobbit’s publication in 1937. As it happened, Tolkien went to see the film with literary friend and sometime rival C.S. Lewis. Neither liked it very much. In a 1939 letter, Lewis granted that “the terrifying bits were good, and the animals really most moving.” But he also called Disney a “poor boob” and lamented “What might not have come of it if this man had been educated—or even brought up in a decent society?”
Tolkien, notes Atlas Obscura, “found Snow White lovely, but otherwise wasn’t pleased with the dwarves. To both Tolkien and Lewis, it seemed, Disney’s dwarves were a gross oversimplification of a concept they held as precious”—the concept, that is, of fairy stories. Some might brush away their opinions as two Oxford dons gazing down their noses at American mass entertainment. As Tolkien scholar Trish Lambert puts it, “I think it grated on them that he [Disney] was commercializing something that they considered almost sacrosanct.”
“Indeed,” writes Steven D. Greydanus at the National Catholic Register, “it would be impossible to imagine” these two authors “being anything but appalled by Disney’s silly dwarfs, with their slapstick humor, nursery-moniker names, and singsong musical numbers.” One might counter that Tolkien’s dwarves (as he insists on pluralizing the word), also have funny names (derived, however, from Old Norse) and also break into song. But he takes pains to separate his dwarves from the common run of children’s story dwarfs.
Tolkien would later express his reverence for fairy tales in a scholarly 1947 essay titled “On Fairy Stories,” in which he attempts to define the genre, parsing its differences from other types of marvelous fiction, and writing with awe, “the realm of fairy story is wide and deep and high.” These are stories to be taken seriously, not dumbed-down and infantilized as he believed they had been. “The association of children and fairy-stories,” he writes, “is an accident of our domestic history.”
Tolkien wrote The Hobbit for young people, but he did not write it as a “children’s book.” Nothing in the book panders, not the language, nor the complex characterization, nor the grown-up themes. Disney’s works, on the other hand, represented to Tolkien a cheapening of ancient cultural artifacts, and he seemed to think that Disney’s approach to films for children was especially condescending and cynical.
He described Disney’s work on the whole as “vulgar” and the man himself, in a 1964 letter, as “simply a cheat,” who is “hopelessly corrupted” by profit-seeking (though he admits he is “not innocent of the profit-motive” himself).
…I recognize his talent, but it has always seemed to me hopelessly corrupted. Though in most of the ‘pictures’ proceeding from his studios there are admirable or charming passages, the effect of all of them is to me disgusting. Some have given me nausea…
This explication of Tolkien’s dislike for Disney goes beyond mere gossip to an important practical upshot: Tolkien would not allow any of his works to be given the Walt Disney treatment. While his publisher approached the studios about a Lord of the Rings adaptation (they were turned down at the time), most scholars think this happened without the author’s knowledge, which seems a safe assumption to say the least.
Tolkien’s long history of expressing negative opinions about Disney led to his later forbidding, “as long as it was possible,” any of his works to be produced “by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing).” Astute readers of Tolkien know his serious intent in even the most comic of his characters and situations. Or as Vintage News’ Martin Chalakoski writes, “there is not a speck of Disney in any of those pages.”