Would Gollum have been better unanimated?

[Alonna]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by davem

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

Peter Woodthorpe? Who's he? (Absolutely no sarcasm meant. I truly don't know.)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Peter Woodthorpe? Who's he? (Absolutely no sarcasm meant. I truly don't know.)

He played Gollum in the BBC radio series (he also did the voice of Gollum in the Bakshi LotR, but you don't get any real sense of his vocal artistry in that)

[Mithalwen]

I really wasn't keen on the movie gollum - perhaps I had seen one too many "how it was done programme" but I found it impossible to suspend my disbelief with Gollum and his "active fit" loincloth (bet it beats pampers for a nappy that stays in place regardless of what the wearer does).

Peter Woodthorpe is unbeatable for me too ( the Sam/Frodo/Gollum trio is perhaps the aspect of the Radio version that most decisively better than the film - though even I (!) prefer somethings in the film (Aragorn perhaps being the most decisive winner) and some characters / handling are different but not inferior but different (Christopher Lee was a powerful Saruman but the radio actor caught the poisoned honey charm of his voice so well.

Yes I know some things are easier on the radio, but I have also seen the musical and the handling of Gollum played by a real person (acrobat Michel Therriault) was amazing.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

No-one could pull off the skeleton look? Sure, Finduilas, if the film-makers chose to follow your ethical system...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Gollum was actually a thing in the movie I did like (so THERE!). He was very close to my mental image. And the voice- well, I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's not that different from the Gollum-voice JRRT himself used in reading 'Riddles in the Dark.'

However, like every other character in the movie, Gollum suffered from bad dialogue. The split-personality thing, as usual, lacked all subtlety: PJ's 50,000 watt PA again.

[Bêthberry]

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]

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.

[Sauron the White]

Remember that William Defoe was playing an actual person who was on screen in one of the most memorable performances of the silent era. He did not have to invent completely out of whole cloth. Even as good as he was, portraying Max Schrek of NOSFERATU fame, I could not see him as Gollum.

Regarding the celebrated Michel Therriault - I did see him in Toronto in the play LOTR and felt he was one of the better things in the production. And keep in mind that I did not like that production at all. However, the Therriault Gollum was the same one Andy Serkis gave us but this time on speed. It was as if he took the already established Serkis Gollum and treated it like an old 33 rpm record and played it at 78 rpm. Without the Serkis Gollum I do not think there ever would have been such a role as that done by Therriault. I also saw him at least twice in Shakespeare productions in Stratford and he was not particularly memorable. But my old playbooks claim that he was in at least two plays I did see.

I must agree with Findulias about the physical problems of casting a real flesh and bones actor in the role. You would need someone who resembled a concentration camp victim but at the same time could perform very difficult athletic stunts without fear of injury. Thats a very contradictory combination that is hard to find in the real world, let alone a trained professional.

[Galendor]

I also love the film Nosferatu. Willem (or any actor) would have the written Tolkien description to base his acting on, which would probably be more information to base a character on than given in most Hollywood scripts. The same information any of the actors in these movies had.

As far as stunts go, I doubt Orlando Bloom can actually swing around a brontosaurus-sized oiliphant and slide down its trunk, but he appeared to do so in the movie. There are obviously movie-magic methods of making it appear as if the human actor performs inhuman feats. The same methods could have been applied where needed to make non-animated Gollum appear to climb up a cliff or whatever else.

I simply propose that animated Gollum was unnecessary and overdone: a real actor would have been less freakish, but perhaps more haunting, more real. And more consistent with the other main characters, and perhaps his true nature as Tolkien intended (a Hobbit, wasted away by the Ring, guilt, and time). But it is a small matter, and speculation.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, for me this one is easy. No.
For all the grousing about Jackson's propensity for CG, I think he would have done a live-performance Gollum if he thought it were at all workable. Do we get how much money had to be spent bringing a CG Gollum to life?
Part of the whole point about Gollum, at least from my point of view, is that a good deal of him is no longer human (or hobbit, whatever). I don't just mean psychologically, I mean in his appearance.
I think the filmmakers struck the perfect balance: an animated Gollum that relied heavily on Andy Serkis, not merely for voice and visual reference, but for facial expression and body language. It's easy to watch the film and see that Gollum is part human in the sense that he was a fairly normal person before possessing the Ring. And I think it accomplishes that in a way that no human actor in the world could do on his own.

I of course greatly respect alatar and others who adore Peter Woodthorpe's performance as Gollum in the BBC radio version, but I found it one of the most unsufferable pieces of the entire whole. Everytime he spoke, I cringed and wondered, "Is this the most Gollum-sounding anyone can be?" I think I prefer Tolkien's Gollum to Woodthorpe's, and Tolkien wasn't acting, merely reading.
Serkis' Gollum-voice, to me, will always be THE Gollum; like his appearance, it simply doesn't seem very human -- and in this case, the credit goes exclusively to Serkis' unenhanced performance.

[Galendor]

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