Would Gollum have been better unanimated? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Galendor · 11-19-2007, 10:52 PM

Hi all, I'm a new member and this is my first post.

I found the animated portrayal of Gollum in the Jackson movies irritating and distracting. Does anyone agree? To me, the animated Gollum character didn't look "real" in comparison to the other hobbits, and he had an extremely nasal, whining voice. I often cringe when watching/hearing the exaggerated antics and sounds from this animated creation.

I propose that Gollum would have been better portrayed without animation, using movie makeup and costume. Of course, the same effects that made the other hobbits look small would have to be used on the Gollum actor as well (this was convincingly done, in my opinion). Using movie makeup and costume, the unanimated Gollum character could still appear as a small, shriveled, hairless, pale hobbit with sunken eyes and pointy teeth, wearing a loincloth. I think with the right actor, this would have allowed a better portrayal of Gollum, in a fashion more consistent with the other humanoid characters.

It isn't clear to me why Jackson chose to animate Gollumn. Was it necessary (I think not). Was it effective (I say no, animated Gollumn did not look or sound "real" like the other main characters). Perhaps Jackson created animated Gollumn for no better reason than an excuse to use expensive animation technology.

Best Regards, I'm only giving an opinion and do not wish to offend.

davem · 11-20-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galendor

It isn't clear to me why Jackson chose to animate Gollumn. Was it necessary (I think not). Was it effective (I say no, animated Gollumn did not look or sound "real" like the other main characters). Perhaps Jackson created animated Gollumn for no better reason than an excuse to use expensive animation technology.

.

I think that was a major problem with the movies overall - Jackson put in a lot of unnecessary SFX simply because he could. Without the technology we would have had a much more intimate, 'personal' movie. Jackson strikes me as someone who would only talk to you at a normal level when he couldn't wheel up a massive PA system behind you on a flatbed truck & scream what he wanted to tell you at 50,000 decibels.

(btw, on the 'loincloth' thing - Tolkien never described Gollum as wearing a loincloth. In TH he's described as having pockets. I suspect the loincloth thing derives from Bakshi - unless anyone knows of earlier depictions on him dressed in that way (possibly Baynes??). Its always struck me as silly for him to be dressed in that way.)

Alonna · 11-20-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

(btw, on the 'loincloth' thing - Tolkien never described Gollum as wearing a loincloth. In TH he's described as having pockets. I suspect the loincloth thing derives from Bakshi - unless anyone knows of earlier depictions on him dressed in that way (possibly Baynes??). Its always struck me as silly for him to be dressed in that way.)

Jackson has admitted to being heavily influenced by Bakshi, so it wouldn't be surprising if he took that from the Bakshi film. At least he didn't go with Rankin/Bass's interpretation of Gollum and have him naked, though that is certainly not accurate in regards to him having pockets. Interestingly in The Hobbit comic book that was issued in 1989, Gollum does wear extremely ragged pants which would be in line with the text.

Sauron the White · 11-20-2007, 11:49 AM

Gollum was nearly dead on perfection. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could have done it any better. The combination of Andy Serkis and cutting edge technology that was developed for the character gave us an excellent on screen Gollum.

While Bakshi may have been a minor influence, I see no Bakshi/Gollum effect in the Jackson movies.

Go back and read some professional reviews of the appearance of Gollum on screen if you want to see what the critics thought of him. It was almost completely positive.

Finduilas · 11-20-2007, 12:21 PM

I agree mostly with Souron the White here. Gollum was well done, in my opinion, but I wouldn't say "nearly dead on perfection." I, though, was very happy with how they did him.

I don't think they could have done him well any other way. Maybe if they starved their actor for a month... One description of Gollum in the book is before the black gate. I don't have the book right here, but it was to the effect, that he would appear as a skeleton with a few rags of cloth hanging from him. I don't think there are any actors that fill this description.

Voice wise, I liked him, but there were a few times where it didn't quite... sound right. I don't know. But usually, it was fine.

davem · 11-20-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Voice wise, I liked him, but there were a few times where it didn't quite... sound right. I don't know. But usually, it was fine.

Peter Woodthorpe was the voice of Gollum. No other actor will ever come close.

Bêthberry · 11-20-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finduilas

I don't have the book right here, but it was to the effect, that he would appear as a skeleton with a few rags of cloth hanging from him. I don't think there are any actors that fill this description.

That's why they call it acting, m'dear.

Galendor · 11-20-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finduilas

... he would appear as a skeleton with a few rags of cloth hanging from him. I don't think there are any actors that fill this description.

Voice wise, I liked him, but there were a few times where it didn't quite... sound right. I don't know. But usually, it was fine.

How about Willem Dafoe? He looks creepy and sort of Gollum-like here.

Galendor · 11-20-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Gollum was nearly dead on perfection. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could have done it any better. The combination of Andy Serkis and cutting edge technology that was developed for the character gave us an excellent on screen Gollum....

Go back and read some professional reviews of the appearance of Gollum on screen if you want to see what the critics thought of him. It was almost completely positive.

I'm sure it was a great technological feat to make the animated Gollum appear as realistic as it did, and probably some reviewers responded favorably to that. But I found the animated Gollum to often look "unreal" in comparison to the Hobbit actors, especially when they are together in a scene. I think a real actor could have resulted in a more realistic portrayal. For the same reason, I'm glad Jackson used real actors for elves and orcs.

I don't mean to trash the Jackson films, but in my humble opinion the animated Gollum had a sort of Jar-Jar (Star Wars) like quality, and I don't mean that in a good way

Nazgûl-king · 12-10-2007, 12:13 PM

I thought the CG Gollum was great! I though he looked very realistic, and as for the voice, I thought the voice fit the character quite well.

McCaber · 12-10-2007, 02:23 PM

Yeah, Serkis did a great job.

Azaelia of Willowbottom · 12-11-2007, 10:21 AM

I think the CG Gollum was great. In fact, it remains the best CG character I've ever seen. He looks alive--there's nothing dead behind those eyes the way there sometimes is in other CG. He moves alive--there's nothing inorganic about the way he navigates the world. He sounds alive. Serkis not only did excellently with physicality, but with voice. It's a shame he never really got the recognition he deserved for excelling at what was clearly a very difficult job. He doesn't look too clean-cut or rubbery, the way that a lot of the CG in the newer Star Wars movies does.

Unfortunately, something like Michael Therriault's Gollum wouldn't work onscreen, I don't think. It's all done with stage makeup. He seems to be in shape, but he's not nearly as thin as his makeup suggests. It works onstage, because there's a different kind of suspension of disbelief in theater. In a huge playhouse, he really would come across as skeletal. Unfortunately, the camera sees everything, and in the case of something like that, it would just see someone in makeup. There's also the added disadvantage that whoever they cast would have to look plausible next to Elijah Wood, who is a very small, slight person. There are ways to cheat a lot of size-related things in cinema (and isn't LOTR a testament to that?), but the camera can't make Gollum look much thinner than the actor already is. Not to mention, the actor would have to be, as already discussed, in good phyiscal shape. John Rhys Davies was made to appear much shorter as Gimli, but Gimli is still shaped like JRD. That's why you'll often hear about actors gaining or losing weight for a role. Some of that can be taken care of with creative costuming, but not all of it.

alatar · 12-17-2007, 12:41 PM

My youngest and I were watching TTT the other night, as, well, it was on and she was up. We watched the scene were Gollum was taken by Faramir's men at the Forbidden Pool, and as this was the theatrical version, we don't get the joy of seeing Gollum being pummeled - tenderized - like so much meat.

Anyway, Gollum hides in a corner and Smeagol and Gollum begin to talk again. Faramir waits in anticipation, as seemingly here's the answer to Frodo's secret. Gollum finally turns, and with all of the venom he has in him, says something then "PRECIOUS!"

My daughter looked at me and said, in her best Gollumy voice, "The monkey said, 'Precious!'"

zxcvbn · 12-17-2007, 01:22 PM

I noticed that ALL these incarnations of Gollum(including the movies') have one common mistake: they all depict Gollum with greyish skin, instead of the black-skinned creature in the books.

11-19-2007, 10:52 PM	#1
Galendor Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Mirkwood, NC Posts: 66	Would Gollum have been better unanimated? Hi all, I'm a new member and this is my first post. I found the animated portrayal of Gollum in the Jackson movies irritating and distracting. Does anyone agree? To me, the animated Gollum character didn't look "real" in comparison to the other hobbits, and he had an extremely nasal, whining voice. I often cringe when watching/hearing the exaggerated antics and sounds from this animated creation. I propose that Gollum would have been better portrayed without animation, using movie makeup and costume. Of course, the same effects that made the other hobbits look small would have to be used on the Gollum actor as well (this was convincingly done, in my opinion). Using movie makeup and costume, the unanimated Gollum character could still appear as a small, shriveled, hairless, pale hobbit with sunken eyes and pointy teeth, wearing a loincloth. I think with the right actor, this would have allowed a better portrayal of Gollum, in a fashion more consistent with the other humanoid characters. It isn't clear to me why Jackson chose to animate Gollumn. Was it necessary (I think not). Was it effective (I say no, animated Gollumn did not look or sound "real" like the other main characters). Perhaps Jackson created animated Gollumn for no better reason than an excuse to use expensive animation technology. Best Regards, I'm only giving an opinion and do not wish to offend. __________________ Time is the mind, the hand that makes (fingers on harpstrings, hero-swords, the acts, the eyes of queens).

11-20-2007, 12:21 PM	#5
Finduilas Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Home. Where rolling green hills and clear rivers are practically my backyard. Posts: 595	I agree mostly with Souron the White here. Gollum was well done, in my opinion, but I wouldn't say "nearly dead on perfection." I, though, was very happy with how they did him. I don't think they could have done him well any other way. Maybe if they starved their actor for a month... One description of Gollum in the book is before the black gate. I don't have the book right here, but it was to the effect, that he would appear as a skeleton with a few rags of cloth hanging from him. I don't think there are any actors that fill this description. Voice wise, I liked him, but there were a few times where it didn't quite... sound right. I don't know. But usually, it was fine. __________________ One (1) book of rules and traffic regulations, which may not be bent or broken. ~ The Phantom Tollbooth

12-11-2007, 10:21 AM	#12
Azaelia of Willowbottom Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: By the Sea Posts: 446	I think the CG Gollum was great. In fact, it remains the best CG character I've ever seen. He looks alive--there's nothing dead behind those eyes the way there sometimes is in other CG. He moves alive--there's nothing inorganic about the way he navigates the world. He sounds alive. Serkis not only did excellently with physicality, but with voice. It's a shame he never really got the recognition he deserved for excelling at what was clearly a very difficult job. He doesn't look too clean-cut or rubbery, the way that a lot of the CG in the newer Star Wars movies does. Unfortunately, something like Michael Therriault's Gollum wouldn't work onscreen, I don't think. It's all done with stage makeup. He seems to be in shape, but he's not nearly as thin as his makeup suggests. It works onstage, because there's a different kind of suspension of disbelief in theater. In a huge playhouse, he really would come across as skeletal. Unfortunately, the camera sees everything, and in the case of something like that, it would just see someone in makeup. There's also the added disadvantage that whoever they cast would have to look plausible next to Elijah Wood, who is a very small, slight person. There are ways to cheat a lot of size-related things in cinema (and isn't LOTR a testament to that?), but the camera can't make Gollum look much thinner than the actor already is. Not to mention, the actor would have to be, as already discussed, in good phyiscal shape. John Rhys Davies was made to appear much shorter as Gimli, but Gimli is still shaped like JRD. That's why you'll often hear about actors gaining or losing weight for a role. Some of that can be taken care of with creative costuming, but not all of it. __________________ "Wherever I have been, I am back."

12-17-2007, 12:41 PM	#13
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	My youngest and I were watching TTT the other night, as, well, it was on and she was up. We watched the scene were Gollum was taken by Faramir's men at the Forbidden Pool, and as this was the theatrical version, we don't get the joy of seeing Gollum being pummeled - tenderized - like so much meat. Anyway, Gollum hides in a corner and Smeagol and Gollum begin to talk again. Faramir waits in anticipation, as seemingly here's the answer to Frodo's secret. Gollum finally turns, and with all of the venom he has in him, says something then "PRECIOUS!" My daughter looked at me and said, in her best Gollumy voice, "The monkey said, 'Precious!'" __________________ There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.

11-20-2007, 11:49 AM	#4
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Gollum was nearly dead on perfection. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could have done it any better. The combination of Andy Serkis and cutting edge technology that was developed for the character gave us an excellent on screen Gollum. While Bakshi may have been a minor influence, I see no Bakshi/Gollum effect in the Jackson movies. Go back and read some professional reviews of the appearance of Gollum on screen if you want to see what the critics thought of him. It was almost completely positive.

12-10-2007, 12:13 PM	#10
Nazgûl-king Wight Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 104	I thought the CG Gollum was great! I though he looked very realistic, and as for the voice, I thought the voice fit the character quite well.

12-10-2007, 02:23 PM	#11
McCaber Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Skyrim, again. Posts: 820	Yeah, Serkis did a great job.

12-17-2007, 01:22 PM	#14
zxcvbn Wight Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In front of my PC Posts: 164	I noticed that ALL these incarnations of Gollum(including the movies') have one common mistake: they all depict Gollum with greyish skin, instead of the black-skinned creature in the books.