Jenna’s Comments (group member since Sep 09, 2012)

Jenna’s comments from the J.R.R. Tolkien group.

Thank-you again, Carlos and Anne-Marie! The idea of actually visiting a church and attending mass is a great one. (I was raised in the United Church and never really understood what mass is about...) (When you use the terms mass and rite, are these the same ceremonies [is that an appropriate word, even?] or are they two different things?) Right now I live in Japan, so that would be a bit difficult, but when I return to Canada in the fall, I'll have to ask my Catholic friends about it :)

Codex, thanks for the links, I'll check them out now. I lean towards Buddhism myself so I am intrigued!

Thank-you both, Phillip and Anne Marie! That's exactly what I was looking for. I will check out your recommendations :)

I like this thread! I'll have to check out the links. However, I struggle a bit with this subject (even though I'm really interested in it) because I don't know very much about Catholicism. Can anyone recommend some reading to help me fill this gap in my knowledge?

Barbara wrote: "Anne wrote: "The wine the Hobbit Elves drank was especially potent, so that had a lot to do with it."

This wasn't mentioned in the Hobbit book as I remember.


Why have children? Maybe the same r..."

I think I can clarify two points for you. Re: potent wine - this is described in a circumspect manner in The Hobbit: "...but this wine, it would seem, was the heady vintage of the great gardens on Dorwinion, not meant for his soldiers or his servants, but for the king's feasts only, and for smaller bowls not for the butler's great flagons." The following paragraph describes the guard and butler falling asleep.

Re: Arwen - she gives Frodo her place on the ship at the Havens so he can go West.

Hope this helps!

Elizabeth wrote: "Ahhhhh, finely!!! Someone who agrees with me. I've been having a hard time finding someone who agrees with my views on this movie. Just wanted to say, the reason Legolas looked different is because they CGIed part of his face!!...I don't think the way The Hobbit was cut up works anywhere near as well as the way LotR was."

Thanks! The CGI comment makes a lot of sense XD I don't know why they would go through all that trouble, though, he seemed to me to look just fine as Legolas without the CGI. I agree that breaking The Hobbit into three parts doesn't seem very natural. This second movie feels very much like that, the middle part of the story, and it's too bad it couldn't really broken down into three movies with some resolutions, like, as you point, happens in Lord of the Rings. The Two Towers was my favourite LotR movie, but DoS won't be my favourite Hobbit movie.

Michael wrote: "I stayed clear of buying the extended edition of An Unexpected Journey, but interesting to read it has some great enhancements.."

I just watched the EE a couple nights ago and while there were a few additions that just extend Jackson's portrayal of comical, brash dwarves (note the EE has a warning for 'partial nudity'...), for the most part, I thought the additions were worth it (particularly the songs! even if they don't fit the atmosphere nearly as well as the two that are already in the movie).

Beverly wrote: "I am glad that there were some people (Matt, Reno) who didn't totally hate the film. I enjoyed the film overall as well; I especially liked the Smaug/Bilbo scenes. I pretty much agree with most of ..."

Thanks! On my first viewing, I didn't think there were any scenes as good as those in the first movie (such as Bilbo and Gollum) but I think Bilbo and Smaug may be just as good if for different reasons.

Pallavi wrote: "Reno wrote: "Right-o, here are my thoughts. I’ve been stewing on this film since I saw it on December 12; I’ve been digesting your comments, my friends’ comments, reviewer’s comments, and my own th..."

Thank-you! I completely forgot about both of those parts until I saw them a second time! I suppose they were just so awful I blanked them from my mind >.> Kili's quip is out of line. I too am not a fan of toilet humour, especially when so literal (although the look on Bilbo's face when he came crawling out was quite appropriate!).

Right-o, here are my thoughts. I’ve been stewing on this film since I saw it on December 12; I’ve been digesting your comments, my friends’ comments, reviewer’s comments, and my own thoughts, so I have lots to write. I will see the movie again tomorrow night; I wonder how much my opinion of it might change? My views are a combination of taking the movie solely for what it is – a movie – as well as comparing it to the book. I know there is always debate over how faithful a movie adaptation to be should a book. My view: While I recognize that a movie is not the same medium as a book and some concessions must be made, I would not be seeing the movie if I was not a fan of the book. I would have liked to see a highly faithful adaptation of the book, but I went into the film knowing that wasn’t a reasonable expectation and thinking that the movie would be vastly different from the book but possibly still a good movie. My bias: I first read this book when I was in the target audience, about 11 years old, and it has been my favourite book since then. I’ve read it a couple times each year since then and I probably like a lot of things in the book that I might not like as much now, as a ‘grown-up’, if I wasn’t so invested in it. I loved An Unexpected Journey; I wasn't very excited about Azog but I understood why they put him in. This post is a beast, full of ‘although’s and ‘but’s...but where else could I post it? :) Spoilers ahead for everything (book, movies, probably the last movie).

• Jackson’s cameo – perhaps self-indulgent but a nice touch of nostalgia, the whole theatre cheered.

• Beorn – Of all the characters to skimp on! I feel he was a missed opportunity, though I suspect we will see plenty more of him in the final film. I am of the “What’s with the facial hair?!” camp. I also though the design of his bear form was a bit wonky somehow – we didn’t see too much of this, though, so I’m going to pay closer attention upon second viewing. Design critiques aside (odd for me, because I’m usually so enamoured with the character designs in these films), the actor was spot on and I’m glad they kept the line about hating orcs more than dwarves. That sort of line may be overdone nowadays, but I enjoyed it in the book. I always thought the way the dwarves were introduced in the book was amusing and I was a bit miffed at the ‘dramatic introduction’ in the film but I get that that’s more fitting for the movie. I particularly liked the set design for Beorn’s house, lots of treats for the fans of the book (the honeybees were a great touch in 3D!).

• Mirkwood – Again, Mirkwood seemed to me to be a lost opportunity. I actually thought Mirkwood was going to make up the bulk of the movie, or that we would have spent at least half more time being endangered and lost before getting to the elves (although perhaps that might have quickly become dull, I’ve always had a vivied image of Bilbo running around in a panic calling all the dwarves names and I would’ve liked to see Martin play that). I was looking forward to seeing the river crossing and poor Bombur, but I suppose that scene was imminently cutable. I liked the spiders and was very pleased to hear them speaking – I liked how the film worked that in; you wouldn’t expect the spiders to the talk in the Jackson universe but I think it worked well tying it to the Rings (I do like how they play up the Ring’s role, I don’t find it too overbearing but a subtle reminder of the bigger picture happening behind the scenes). THRANDUIL - Lee Pace is fabulous and I love that they kept his eyebrows :P (Second viewing will hopefully bring more substantial opinions about him).

• Legolas – I did like the idea of Legolas making an appearance; it made sense canonically and would be a nice connecting point to LotR. However, I anticipated him in a minor role... He seems very different from the character in LotR. I’m not sure if this is because his appearance is different (Bloom is relatively quite a bit older – however, he looks like how he looked in LotR in behind-the-scenes clips so I’m still trying to figure out how he looks so different in DoS). I’ll have to wait until second viewing to decide how I feel about him.

• Laketown – Oh, I adore Laketown and its theme music (probably my favourite part of the film, haha). I really like Bard but not his children haha – I think this is because I’ve been conditioned to not expect children to take part in the story, so they felt strange and out of place to me. I’ll have to see how I feel after the second viewing. Stephen Fry is spot on as the Master, I think they’ve got that character just right.
• Thorin – I am super stoked with Thorin, they are capturing his descent, if you will, perfectly, it’s growing steadily and Richard Armitage is stellar and I am probably going to cry when he finds out Bilbo gave away the Arkenstone, that bit is uncomfortable enough in the book and I suspect it is going to be so very painful in the film (of all the changes they’re making they can’t do away with that right?!). Anyhow. I know a lot of young women like me fangirl over Thorin but I don’t tend to fangirl over anything Tolkien-related – I’m just really really pleased with how his character is being portrayed in the film, regardless of the fact that he’s more Aragorn-esque than the old long-bearded dwarf of Tolkien’s book.

• Bilbo – Poor Bilbo, I feel as though he’s got the short end of the stick in this film. I would have loved to see more of him. I like the story to be primarily about Bilbo (and the dwarves), but I acknowledge they are making the films about a whole lot more. I particularly liked his scenes with the spiders, getting the dwarves into their barrels (a digression re: the barrels and related scenes - I can’t believe they kept the drunk elves! I was certain that would be gone, not that I mind. I actually found Bombur’s tumbling very amusing, in a good, entertaining way – such physical comedy/action is not something I usually appreciate.) and his exchange with Smaug. Speaking of Smaug...

• Smaug – Well done!! One aspect of this film that certainly did not disappoint was Smaug, and his exchanges with Bilbo. When I read the book, I actually hear a voice similar to Benedict Cumberbatch’s normal voice for Smaug so I was delighted to hear he had been cast. I was a bit disappointed by how they altered his voice, but it makes sense given the character. His design and animation was fantastic (I personally like a dragon with a bit more colour, though ;P [I can’t recall what Tolkien wrote about Smaug’s colouring, I will have to check...]). I’m glad that he got more screen time and that the dwarves were able to interact with him more, even though most of it was extended action I could normally do without. Covering him in gold might have been a bit excessive but he did look fabulous launching into the sky and shedding it all. I actually thought this film would end with Smaug’s death – what a wait for those who don’t know the story!

• Tauriel and Kili – Augh. Cringe. Why. I actually shut my eyes during the healing scene because I didn’t want it to be happening. I don’t mind Tauriel as a new character – sure, why not, a female Elf sounds like a nice addition to the film to try to give it a bit of gender balance. Oh, but she’s primarily a love interest? Ugh, I could go on about that, but it doesn’t surprise me. I actually like Tauriel as a character on her own but overall I found that love story is poorly written and cheesy and unbelievable and takes up such a significant portion of the film – for me, it seems out of place even in the Jackson universe. Someone on Tumblr pointed out how both Kili and Tauriel are young for their races and have a different opinion of the greater world than the average elf/dwarf does (ex. Tauriel thinks the elves should be more involved, Kili doesn’t have a grudge like Thorin), which I thought was a great point, but it’s barely played up in the film. I wonder where these two characters will go in the final film...

• Splitting up the dwarves – This one may be largely personal preference, but I was absolutely horrified that this happened! It felt so wrong to me. I would like to know what people who haven’t read the book felt about this, but I am strongly of the opinion that the dwarves started this quest together and would see it through together. It makes logical sense in the film why this happened (I think leaving Bofur was unnecessary, but I am highly biased in this regard ;P) but it just felt painfully wrong.

I’m sure there’s lots I still haven’t even thought about, but I think this is more than enough to contemplate after one viewing! I didn’t even mention Gandalf/Azog/Bolg/Angry orcs...meh. I’ll have to see it again to form an opinion on that arc. Overall, the major contention I had with this movie was the amount of poorly written, unnecessary new stuff they put in and good, entertaining book stuff they left out (albeit, this is highly subjective, so please remember this is just my own opinion). I was prepared to see a movie that was largely different from the book, but I was anticipating a movie that would still be enjoyable and fitting in the Jackson-verse. Unfortunately, for me, most of the new stuff was not enjoyable - if there are to be changes and new bits, I hope those bits will be equal to or better than the book bits. As I’m sure I made evident, I was immensely disappointed by the Tauriel love story – it really upset the balance of the story for me. Had it been removed, and thus had we been able to see more of the titular Hobbit and his companions, however different their actions may be from those in the book, I would have been much more satisfied. Many of the qualms I had with this film are based on my own personal preference and are largely forgivable, but depriving Bilbo and co. of screen time in favour of a flimsy love story that feels awkward even in the Jackson-verse? Not quite so forgivable. there were parts I enjoyed, but nowhere near on the level of my enjoyment of the first movie. Oh well! I have only seen the movie once, though, so while it may seem like I'm very angry with the whole thing, my opinions and understandings of it are still growing and changing so please feel free to pick apart this post and let me know what you agree or disagree with and why!

EDIT: I enjoyed the film much more during my second viewing! It was easier to disregard the bits I didn't like since I was no longer being blindsided by them and instead focus on the bits I really liked (everything with Bilbo, Bard's expanded role, set design, etc.) After first viewing I would have given it a Goodreads rating of 1.5 stars, now I'd give it a 3 (AUE gets 4).

Katherine wrote: "...like with Legolas' eyes. Why do his eyes have to be so freakishly blue, they weren't before and it was fine...

Haha, I couldn't pass this by without commenting. I'm glad to hear other people are noting this as well! I thought it was a bit funny, like they were trying to make a point after so many people noted how his eyes switched between brown and blue in LotR - like they were saying "SEE we got it right this time THEY ARE REALLY BLUE!"

Even though I saw the midnight premier of the film, I'm still collecting my thoughts - overall I was a bit shell shocked and very disappointed. I have been eagerly reading everyone's thoughts, and I will post my further responses + own thoughts soon!

Philip wrote: "According to his biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, J.R.R. Tolkien was not interested in modern literature, so he was not really influenced by it. He rarely read novels. His love was for reading Icela..."

Phillip, you make good points which make me realize I should have clarified my final point - I think if Tolkien was born anytime after, say, the 60s, that he may not have been as exposed to medieval literature, linguistics, particular ideas about women, etc. (or for that matter as influenced by the happenings of the World Wars) in the way that he was having been born in the late 1800s. By 'modern influence' I meant the modern world in which he would have been raised, rather than modern art forms. But I do agree, if he had still fallen in love with those ideas in today's time then I think we would be reading much the same story.

(I hope no one is minding this tangent too much!)

Hyarrowen wrote: Rebel and leader of the guard don't really go together, not in a society as old as an Elven one, that's for sure...

Agreed! It will be interesting to see where she comes from, i.e. what her backstory is.

Philip wrote: As far as The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is concerned, I think any misgivings about Tauriel, the elf maiden warrior, will be forgotten when we sit in our seats in the cinema, to see Smaug guarding the dwarf treasure, while Bilbo steals from the glittering pile, the Arkenstone.

Yes!! That is certain to be a highlight. (I am already cringing at the thought of watching Thorin's reaction when he finds out what Bilbo's done with it...) Speaking of which, this has been touched upon a bit, but what is everyone looking most forward to seeing in this film?

Michelle wrote: Good point. However, apparently she's supposed to be head of the Mirkwood Elven guard, and I feel like that's really pushing it. The Hobbit was released in 1937...but who knows, maybe Tolkien would be cool with it? I wonder if he was born later do you think he would have made more female characters?

Agreed! I feel like they've tried to pack too many tropes in Tauriel - female warrior, red haired, rebel, leader of the guard, love interest, etc.

Your question about whether Tolkien would have included more female characters if he lived at a different time is a rather pertinent one. I think about this a lot and really struggle with it! I honestly feel that Tolkien was crafting a specific type of story in a specific type of world and if female characters appeared as equally and frequently as male characters it wouldn't be the same kind of story - but, as someone who tries to be a good feminist, I feel like this is the wrong idea for me to have? Like it's a poor argument for not having many female characters to say 'oh, it's just not that kind of story.' Then again, I do think if he lived today there might be more females, just because he probably wouldn't have been so influenced to write the particular story that he did - it would be a very different piece of work under modern influence, I think. I would love to hear other opinions on this...

Eh, I don't know how to quote a post so I've just blockquoted bits from others' posts...

Michelle: Have you all seen the new trailer for The Desolation of Smaug? What do you think?

The biggest thing I took away from the trailer that I didn't already know about is the relationship between the dwarves and the elves - it looks like it's going to be much expanded and much changed from the books (which at this point I have no comment on, we'll have to see how it plays out!). I knew that the role of the elves would probably be enhanced but I hadn't considered exactly what that would look.

But mostly, at this point I'm not too upset (or excited) with any suspected divergences from the book. Primarily I am excited to see fantastic scenes in the book come to life, such as Bard taking down Smaug (er, does that happen in this movie?) or Bilbo sneaking into the mountain. Jackson can do whatever he like, he can make choices that I disagree with, but at the end of the day I know there are going to be some great scenes (like the dwarves' songs in the first film) that I will love and that will make it all worth it for me :)

Michelle: Anyone else cringing at the thought of Legolas having a love interest?

*waves hand* I like the idea of adding a female character into the story - the lack of females in the original story doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't mind seeing a strong female character in the movies. However it seems like they're taking Tauriel in all the wrong directions; to me she doesn't feel believable in Tolkien worlds. But perhaps she will work in Jackson's world! Though, yeah, I'm not so pleased about her being a love interest (the story really doesn't need it), especially for Legolas :/

Phillip: Still, I am looking forward to seeing the film in December, especially the sight of Bilbo in conversation with Smaug.

Yes! This is one of the scenes I am talking about above!! I so adore Martin as Bilbo and seeing that short clip at the beginning of the trailer just totally heightened my excitement levels.

Whooo, that was a lot of typing for when I should be working on an essay for school...I'm just glad to get this all off my chest to some people who might understand what I'm talking about ;P

Fran wrote: "Also, I too am dipping in and out of the Reader's Companion along side the main text. I thought this observation, from Wayne G. Hammond, was well put:
If Tolkien had hurried Frodo and his companions into adventure...we would not appreciate so well the arcadia that Frodo is willing to give up for the sake of his people....Proceeding at the authors deliberately casual pace, we grow to love the Shire as we never loved Bag End in The Hobbit (though we found it a desirable residence), having visited there so briefly before Bilbo was hurried away."

I'm glad you mentioned this point! This is something that took me a long time to appreciate. I tried reading The Fellowship of the Ring many times when I was a lot younger but I found the beginning too long and dry and I wondered 'when the story would start'. When I finally read the entire trilogy for the first time last year, I really came to value the early part of the story for just this reason. This second time around I am savouring it more.

Michael wrote: "Thanks for taking the quiz, Reno. I'm sure you'll love the Silmarillion. It's the foundation upon which Tolkien built his other works.

We recently had the Silmarillion as a Group Read, and now Lor..."

Yes, I am looking forward to tackling it later in the year! I've been putting it off for ages because I know it's going to be a more difficult read and I wanted to 'prepare', but also because I like 'looking forward' to reading it - I'm sure I will find it fascinating :)

Now these are some great quizzes! I took Botany - Part 1 but as I would still be considered a casual Tolkien reader I only scored 6 correct. I haven't read The Silmarllion yet but I'm getting there :P (been reading books about LotR and Tolkien first). I will have to check out the rest of the quizzes once I've done some more reading :)

Hooray, I can't wait to start this again! Last year marked the first time I finally read the trilogy from start to finish...I'm looking forward to picking up on more this time around. I will be reading the 50th anniversary edition, as well as a set of paperbacks that are easier to transport ;P

I'm also going to read concurrently The Lord of the Rings A Reader's Companion, is anyone else doing/interested in doing the same?

Gundula wrote: "These books are on my to-read list:

A Gateway to Sindarin: A Grammar of an Elvish Language from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings

The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-Earth

From Elvish to Klingon: Ex..."

I've been reading The History of the Hobbit and it references A Gateway to Sindarin frequently...definitely going to have to check that one out! I've been studying a bit of linguistics in university (just as a side interest haha) so it will be interesting to read a technical perspective of Sindarin.

I'm intrigued by everyone's thoughts on Kay...I tried reading some of his books when I was younger (around 14) but I just couldn't get into them. I could say the same of The Silmarillion and even LotR at that age, though, books which are of course my all-time favourites today :P Kay's books sound like the sort of stories I would love, though, so I think I shall have to give him another shot...

Yes, thanks very much, L.M.! There's so much information out there, it can be hard to know what's reliable when you've got no knowledge on the subject. This looks like a very good starting point.

I'm glad someone started this thread! I'm interested in learning more about Tolkien's languages; can anyone recommend some good starting places, whether they're books, websites, articles, etc.?