The Hunt for Gollum

[Rumil]

Hi all,

well I got round to watching it at last,

First of all I reckon it's a magnificent achievement to put a film like this together on a budget of tuppence-hapenny and have it look so good. The crew and cast should be heartily congratulated for their hard work.

Thing I liked were, similar to PJ, the wonderful scenery - Misty Mts, Mt Doom, Woods, Mountains and Hills, the Gladden Fields etc. Gollum was spot on, I especially liked the 'bag-gambit', reminded me of Bilbo...

I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me

There will be some who dislike it for following the PJ approach, but I think there was no alternative really, and I quite liked the 'look' of much of the Trilogy (naturally, while muttering and spluttering about the bits PJ made up while leaving so much else out, oh and the giant Hyenas etc etc etc ).

However, there were quite a lot of 'could have done better' moments. The Random Ranger - whats that all about? Should have been a Woodman or Beorning by rights. After the Gladden Fields there was little sense of Middle Earth location. I guess it was mostly supposed to be around and about Mirkwood, the difficult thing with a solo mission is that there's little scope for exposition. Basically Aragorn gets to stare at the ground a lot and look for footprints - not so exciting. I was rather hoping for some action on the margins of Mordor (though I guess trip to Waikato was over-budget!) and a Dead Marshes scene.

The plot was overall pretty weak. Unless you know, there's little indication that Gollum has already been captured and set loose by Sauron, who's hoping to follow him to the Ring. Also there's little feeling of the epic scale of Aragorn's task, it seems as if he pops out for a bit of a stroll and comes back with Gollum a week next Tuesday. Was it just me or were Arwen's ears a bit weird?

Some extra bits I did like were the direct book quotations, the poisoned dart scene (was that plant Elanor perhaps?), Gollum thieving fish from the woodmen (although the cottage was a little too high-tech with its Rayburn grate).

Still I think the main thing is that LoTR fan movies CAN be done, high hopes for the future!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Erendis

All the drawbacks of these realy cute film are almost the same with PJ's.Does any of you dislike the trilogy?

I dislike those drawbacks.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Rumil

First of all I reckon it's a magnificent achievement to put a film like this together on a budget of tuppence-hapenny and have it look so good. The crew and cast should be heartily congratulated for their hard work.

You're absolutely right about that!

[Macalaure]

First of all I reckon it's a magnificent achievement to put a film like this together on a budget of tuppence-hapenny and have it look so good. The crew and cast should be heartily congratulated for their hard work.

I can only second that.

It looked a bit like a copy pf PJ's Middle-earth, but that's not bad at all - the visuals were great in his trilogy.

If only they hadn't also copied PJ's script-writing. Some lines didn't sound Tolkien-like, but Jackson-like, which I found to be a little out of place. I felt like there were several occasions where, with only a little more care or subtlety, this film could have been much, much better. From the top of my hat, I remember Gandalf failing to explain that Gollum knows where Bilbo came from, but not where that land lay. The encounter with the first two Orcs was great, but that mass-Orc-fighting scene later made absolutely no sense. The appearance of the Ringwraith could have been much better, too, if there had been any significance to it. (Were we even told that they were searching for the Ring, too, and were following Gollum therefore?) I might be mixing up the timeline now, but why not let the other ranger tell Aragorn that Osgiliath had been raided and that ominous riders in black had passed the bridge (and then let Aragorn count one and nine together for the viewers)? Also, Aragorn could have been a bit more afraid during the encounter - they are terrible, after all.

I would have liked to see more of Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum. Considering the darkness in that room, it wouldn't have been too hard on the CGI-ers, I think. It was great to hear about the ghost that drinks blood, but I missed Gollum telling us about his new very strong friends, and Gandalf putting the fear of fire into him.

Nevertheless it was very nice to watch it, especially considering that, after all, it was free.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I might be mixing up the timeline now, but why not let the other ranger tell Aragorn that Osgiliath had been raided and that ominous riders in black had passed the bridge (and then let Aragorn count one and nine together for the viewers)?

Well the main thing that troubles me - like I said, and it goes even against what is in the movies (and of course the more in the books) - that nobody should know about the Ringwraith until they come to the Shire: Aragorn not before they come to Bree, and Gandalf not before Saruman (in the books via Radagast) tells him. If the Hunt for Gollum was to be considered a "prequel" to the LotR movies, it would make no sense for Gandalf to leave Frodo alone, and to be surprised by Saruman when he tells him about the Riders ("oh, but I know for about half a year by now"... not to mention that in the Books, if Gandalf knew about the Riders by now, it would be some twenty years before Frodo's departure... how lovely. "The Nazgul are back! They have crossed the River... twenty years ago." Even in the movie where the twenty years are reduced to a few days? Weeks? Months? - Gandalf would be pretty dumb to leave Frodo to the Riders).

[Macalaure]

Well, yes. It was cool, though, if only it wouldn't have given you the feeling of a random encounter.

(Thinking about it now, when Strider talks about the Ringwraiths in Bree, it does not give you the feeling that he's just teaching them general lore, but that he really was confronted with one before. Is it just me, or did I miss something?)

[Hookbill the Goomba]

There are films that stay with you for the rest of your life. They inspire us to ask deep and probing questions. However, the only question The Hunt For Gollum raised for me was 'Why?'

Now, it was well presented. The CGI was better than could be expected for a low to no budget film. The acting was pretty good and the Howard Shore music rip-offs were neat. But I think the plot was far too thin for a really good film. As has been said, there are too many shots of Aragorn bending down and looking at foot prints. And Gandalf didn't have his hat, which was an eternal disappointment.

I'd also like to know why Aragorn whispered everything he said. All the time. I mean, there's being secretive, then there's taking it too far.

Overall, though, I am impressed with what they archived. I just think that the script could have been better, the story stronger and the music more original. Much as I love Howard Shore's score, this rehash of it wasn't up to scratch. Perhaps if they'd got a nice score and a stronger plot, it would have been a much more enjoyable film.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy watching it. It just baffled me. When there are so many unfilled stories from Tolkien that this team could probably have done and done well. I would dearly have loved to see Farmer Giles of Ham.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for that CGI animation version Roverandom that someone should have been made by now.

But, yes, I'm hoping Born of Hope has more to say. Even though the Trailer tells us nothing.

[Beregond]

Well, I did like the film, and as most people agree, it was well done given a limited budget.

However, there were some things I found surprisingly disappointing. It did not bother me that they followed PJ's style, but rather that they almost replicated his scenes. Too often the dialogue and plot tread so closely to its big brother as to induce cringing. I had hoped for something more original, frankly. And while a movie of events only hinted at by Tolkien could hardly be wholly faithful to the books, I found it unnecessary for any of the made-up dialogue to be at odds with what Tolkien wrote. At the same time, I was disappointed in the lack of "bookish" details to satisfy our hunger for such things in a post-PJ world. All in all, I felt the makers of this movie fell into the same trap as PJ did - making things happen because they look good on film whether or not they make any sense (the Nazgul, the strike-first-ask-questions-later attack of the Random Ranger).

From a cinematic point of view, I thought the more obvious computer generated effects weren't the best - and of course they weren't! They didn't have the budget. But I thought the more obvious CGI weren't necessary (the Ring, and Gollum face). It was distracting because it looked so out of place compared to the beautiful photography of the rest of the film. Someone worked very hard for the CGI, but from an outside perspective I wished they had left it out altogether (except for the long shots of Gollum which were well done).

The music was good...but...way too close to Howard Shore's score. I spent the first two minutes trying to figure out if it actually WAS the LotR score or not, and the next five wondering if you're allowed to borrow musical themes like that.

*spoilers*
As for the plot, I felt Gollum's capture was too easy. It fact, the "Hunt" was up before the halfway mark. The climax didn't involve Gollum at all, and Aragorn actually lost his charge.

I didn't mean to be harsh, but my criticism stems from the expectations I had for a non-commercial fan movie. There were many positives and I enjoyed it overall. I liked the Orcs. They had less prosthetics on than did PJ's, and were the more realistic and scary for it. Also, I'm a sucker for Orc dialogue. The fight scene was pretty good (I like swordfights).

As I said, the scenery was amazing. This is where the movie shined. Where was it shot? It seemed to include many locations in NZ, from LotR.

The acting was pretty good, and by the end of the movie I had accepted Adrian Webster as Aragorn. Gandalf was convincing as well, as was Arwen. Too bad we didn't see more of the elves! Gollum-in-a-bag was ingenious and more or less necessary.

And, frankly, I wish the movie was longer but I guess that's a result of budget too. All in all a good effort and an enjoyable 40 minutes. I just expected more "for the fans, by the fans".

[Elmo]

It was shot in Snowdonia, North Wales for the mountains and the Forest of Dean England for the errr forest.

[Erendis]

Brand -new ,actually,dear Rikae!

Well,guys ,why such an attack to my words?-Yahoo!I made impression!-

Talking about the trilogy like this derives firstly from my great love for it ,since it was th reason why I read the books and secondly from the fact that it was an amateur work,made for all types of fans,not just the more sophisticated ones.
Oh,yes,Gwathagor,I crave to see an accurate trilogy too,but since nobody has so much money to waste,I 'll continue watching the trilogy.


P.S.Sorry if I sound too embarassed;it's my hormons going quite wild!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Erendis

it's my hormons going qyite wild!

Yeah, Lord of the Rings does that to me, too.

[Erendis]

Yes,it does indeed!But girls have also some others,not so pleasant reasons.....

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Beregond

As for the plot, I felt Gollum's capture was too easy. It fact, the "Hunt" was up before the halfway mark. The climax didn't involve Gollum at all, and Aragorn actually lost his charge.

I agree. The capture of Gollum should have been the climax of the film, in my opinion. More should have been made of the difficulty of actually capturing him.

Too bad we didn't see more of the elves!

Too bad we didn't see more dwarves, you mean.

Building off Bethberry's idea, why just limit ourselves to the intro? Why don't we Downers just rewrite the whole thing?

[Boo Radley]

Finally, I can post again!!!

OK, now that I've got that out of my system, here's my take on the movie.

First of all, I have to disassociate myself from the desire to compare it to any kind of big budget film with a cadre of professional writers etc, and judge it by what it is. A fan made film.
I give it two hearty thumbs up.

I think it was a brilliant effort and refuse to nit-pick any part of it.
Could it have been better? Sure. What in this benighted world can't be better than it is?
But this ws done out of love and not out of profit and so I stand and applaud it.

[narfforc]

I enjoyed watching this short film. I see it as just another interpretation of Tolkiens works. I have read the books, heard the radio play, seen the films and watched the stage play. Adding to my overall experience of the visualisation of Middle-earth have been artists like Nasmith, Lee, Howe and Lacon amongst others, they are all different. I do not see Viggo as Aragorn (he does a good job of it though), I see an image that differs from others, none are wrong, but are any right, only Tolkien can say. So the more the merrier, give us more.

[Rumil]

Evening all,

remember the whole Middle Earth fan-fic-film-fest-fing?

Next up is 'Born of Hope', an online fan-film looking like a biopic of young Aragorn (or perhaps I should say the story of Arathorn and Gilraen).

Mentioned this last time, but there's a fuller trailer available now

here-
Born of Hope Trailer

Apparently release expected Autumn 09,

Cheers,

R

[Eönwë]

I hadn't watched it all the way until now, and I have to say that i'm impressed.

If you forget that it's meant to be related to LOTR and just imagine it as some short adventure it's not that bad as a short film. Of course, the acting/scripting wasn't that good, and the filming itself wasn't very clean.

And for an amateur film (costing only £3,000), I think I can forgive its shortcomings.

[Nazgûl-king]

I just finished watching this now, it's not bad for a fan film. I think Born of Hope was better, but this was still good. The scenery was great!