Gollum: What did you think?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Any thoughts on Gollum in LOTR?



--------------**--------------------



Cinematic character depiction?



CGI work?



Voice actor work?



True to the original book?



Is he what you imagined from the book?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Cinematically he was intriguing.

    Very nice CGI work, which in two years' time will be what people think of it.....CGI work.



    The voice actor, Andy S. (something) did a very fine job of capturing what I've come to think of as Smeagol/Gollum's mannerisms, influenced heavily by the Bakshi animation.



    True? True enough. The argument between himself was so wonderful to watch, nicely executed and even more nicely highlighted in Faramir's secret cave when Gollum won out over Smeagol in the argument about Frodo's character.



    Is he what I imagined from the book? Moreso than I thought it would be. I finally -saw- how he might be related to hobbit stock...saw the "humanity" in him as opposed to the wicked little green creature of the Bakshi animation. It impressed me.



    'nuff said.





    D
  • Reply 2 of 14
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I think he was as well done as he could be. Maybe an actor with good makeup could have done better? Human actors next to a CGI "human" doesn?t come off well.



    As the character though he was well done.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    He was a very interesting character to watch. My girlfriend thinks he is very cute.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Thankfully, he didn't turn out to be Jar Jar.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I'm happy with how Gollum turned out. He still looked computer-made, but much more real than, say, Jar Jar or Yoda. I still would have liked a puppet like the original Yoda, but the original Yoda didn't move nearly as much.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    jeffyboyjeffyboy Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]My girlfriend thinks he is very cute.<hr></blockquote>



    See, that's my one complaint. I thought he was the most believable CGI charcter I've seen, but when he was arguing with himself, the menacing side of his personality didn't come out as well as it could.



    If you hadn't read the books, I'm afraid he just seemed like a goofy little creature going Cybill. People in the crowd I was in were chuckling, not realizing the danger he could pose to Sam and Frodo if "Gollum" won out over "Smeagol." I think he was too cute in a way.



    Jeff



    Edit-Just to sort of clarify what I'm getting at-I think the most positive feeling Gollum should inspire is sympathy for a wretched creature. Instead, I think he sometimes seemed like he might make a cool pet, sort of a Gremlin that retains the personality of a Mogwai.



    [ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 14
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    jefy, i think some people didn't get the full g v. s intensity, but i think it depends on the person watching the flick. i watched it, w/o aide of the book, and it was clear to me how deep he was and all. some people dont look for character in the characters, they go for the visuals and only see what is immediately apparent.



    -



    i thot g/s was the most compelling character in the movie. the fighting scenes generally don't interest me as much as the plot, and he seemed to add a lot.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I was very pleased and Gollum is my favorite character by far in the series.



    He was scarier in the books than in the movie, but I don't mind it being a bit different on that from. At the end of the movie he's plotting Sam and Frodo's murder, if someone doesn't think he's dangerous then they're obviously stupid. In a way it was good because this brings a whole new depth to his character that wasn't explored as deeply in the books; stinker v. slinker. The way Gollum taunts Smeagol ("...murderer.") ... ah damnit I want to go watch it again! (3 times so far)



    (One of the creepy things I'm disappointed they left out to illustrate his dark side was his comment in the dead marshes about how one couldn't reach the dead (Implication being that he tried to grab a dead body to eat it). Would've taken just a few seconds. Ah well.)



    The CGI was fine, for Christ's sake we have trees talking and walking around, let's suspend our friggin' disbelief for a minute. I know we're all computer nerds, but ease up.



    "Tricksy! False!"
  • Reply 9 of 14
    falconfalcon Posts: 458member
    Gollum was the most impressive computer generated character since Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within IMHO.



    He was so life like I couldnt take my eyes off him. The scene of him belly scrawling through a stream after a fish was amazing, hell every scene involving him was amazing.



    Andy Serkis did a great job in the part. He acted every scene in a motion capture suit, he even had mo-cap markers on his face. The CGI was just placed on top of him.

    Becuase of this there is talk that Gollum could become the first CGI character to get an Oscer nomination for best acting in a supporting role. I think Andy should at least get nominated. If an actor can get awards while under extreme makeup, why not when he has been covered up by pixels?
  • Reply 10 of 14
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Gollum is a masterpiece of Computers animated works.

    He is very near of what i have imagined when reading the book.

    But i agree that the conflict of personality was not perfectly rendered.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Liked it better than some of the oher stuff going on in two towers. I thought Gollum was very well done. However, I think this film was noticeably weaker than the first (though I have been watching the extended DVD). Some of plot choices bother me a bit, particularly surrounding the Ents and Faramir. However, everything might be fixed with an extended DVD.



    Since Gollum is basically a set of actor driven exo-skeletal points, it might be possible to draw him two or three different ways for the purposes of the DVD. Could be fun to see what else they tried!
  • Reply 12 of 14
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Some of plot choices bother me a bit, particularly surrounding the Ents and Faramir. However, everything might be fixed with an extended DVD.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    i hate to agree with you, but i told my wife when we left the theater that i could have sworn there were several places where i thought there was an abrupt cut... like they were intentionally pulling stuff just to pull it and slap it on the extended dvd.



    it's like designing software, then pulling the "print" command and putting it in the "pro" version.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    That was a long ass movie already. I got LotR from X-mass and the extended is better.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by rok:

    <strong>



    i hate to agree with you, but i told my wife when we left the theater that i could have sworn there were several places where i thought there was an abrupt cut... like they were intentionally pulling stuff just to pull it and slap it on the extended dvd.



    it's like designing software, then pulling the "print" command and putting it in the "pro" version. </strong><hr></blockquote>I bet they were contractually obligated by New Line to get it under 3 hours. Initially, they were supposed to be all under 2 hours, but they let them get, uh, a little beyond that.
Sign In or Register to comment.