|  | 
|  | 
| Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page | 
|  09-15-2007, 08:34 AM | #11 | |
| A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed 
					Posts: 4,737
				   | Quote: 
  I've been thinking recently that the CGI on Gollum is starting to look dated already! Which is not to say the CGI was bad (oh no) just that it has moved on in leaps and bounds since then - what will 'hold' the portrayal in years to come is the work of Andy Serkis. Funny to think that he based a lot of the voice on the sound of a cat coughing up a furball (whereas Viggo Mortensen no doubt did not have that in mind when he said Mordor/Morgul/Whateveritwas in that funny way). But anyway... To my mind, the portrayal of Gollum could have been done in any number of ways. We're discussing if PJ kept to the way it was done in the books, but none of us have ever, and will ever agree on Gollum's character anyway. The 'split personality' reading is one that some people get from the books anyway, as is the idea that the Ring was the primary corrupting force behind Gollum's drive. Jackson of course was working in film, an unsubtle medium, and had to settle on a defined way of explaining Gollum and his motivation. Tolkien had the luxury of some 1,000 pages in which to be ambivalent. I do find it fascinating that so many people I know who have never read the books, found the character of Gollum as seen in the films as 'cute'; surely there's some meat for discussion in that? 
				__________________ Gordon's alive! | |
|   |   | 
| 
 | 
 | 
|  |