Gollum-- a 60-year old heroin addict?

[Lhunardawen]

I read the Time Magazine's article on TTT and I found out that they were portraying Gollum as a 60-year old heroin addict. Okay, I am not exactly a fan of Gollum but I think poor little Gollum deserves more than that. He (or it?) has suffered so much more than we could imagine and they would portray Gollum like that? he deserves a role with much more depth because Gollum, as a character of LotR, is one of those who give depth to the story.<P>Please fill me in with what you think about it...

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

60-year-old heroin addict?!? why couldn't they just say 500-year-old ring addict?<BR>not fair to the poor Gollum!<BR>don't care about those filthhhy little magazinesss, they're just trying to be funny.<BR>besides Gollum is cute but an old heroin addic is definitely not!

[Lhunardawen]

Was he an addict for 500 years? Maybe longer..

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

well, in 2463 (3rd age) Déagol finds the One Ring and Sméagol takes it.<BR>the events of 'the Two Towers' happens in 3019 (3rd age) so it makes...err...556 years...damn, you were right <BR>so: 556-year-old ring addict?<p>[ July 12, 2003: Message edited by: dancing spawn of ungoliant ]

[Lhunardawen]

Lol<P>You really thought about it, didn't you?

[Elentári]

Yeah, well how was Serkis supposed to portray a 566-year-old Ring addict?? Just like Ian McKellen didn't even try to play Gandalf as how many years old he is, he just did a seventy-year old man. It worked. Don't get too hyped up about this, guys, it's the closest Serkis could get to relating it to real life (well modern life anyway...never say never ) and I've read that somewhere. I don't think he was trying to make it funny, nor was he saying that Gollum was no better than a 60-year-old heroin addict or whatever. It's just how he portrayed him. And...Gollum wasn't exactly cute, was he?

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

the"Gollum-side" wasn't cute but the "Sméagol-side" was (well, that's what i think)!<BR>but Serkis and the group who created Gollum did excellent job. Gollum doesn't have to look like 556-year-old creature since Frodo didn't look like 50-year-old whereas Bilbo looked though he was 111-years old! the Ring stopped physical aging though years passed.<P>so, a proper portray to Gollum would tell that he is very old hobbit-like creature who is consumed by the One Ring. he is foul but every now and then he shows his nicer side as Sméagol who is like little burdened memory from better days...<BR>oh, well, the last sentence was really weird, but you know where i'm heading to.<BR>(and sorry my bad english)

[The_Hand]

If the year you said was the year of Frodos journey then 556 year old ring addict isn't right because Bilbo "stole" the ring long before that... if not, then right on!

[Tinuviel of Denton]

Even if it was the year of Frodo's journey, Gollum was still addicted to the Ring, he just didn't have it in his possesion.

[Gorwingel]

When they talked about Gollum being a heroin addict that was basically what Andy Serkis said in multiple interviews he based his charater on. I know they probably should have said "ring addict" but there is not really "ring addicts" in the real world, so saying heroin addict probably would give the regular public (people who have not read the book) a better idea of what the charater was like.<P>Though they definitely should have gotten the number of years correct though. Where did they get 60 years from?

[Everdawn]

Think me strange... I can acctually picture that... so think how easy it was for a journalist to.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

i found a mistake of my last post(how on earth is that possible!?!).<BR>i wrote 566-year-old though he was actually a bit older.<P>Gollum has been addicted to the Ring for 566 years but we have to add his age when he found the Ring to that...but i don't think it really is an earth shaking mistake, so... <P>i agree with Gorwingel and Everdawn about that if you have never seen an old ring addict it is a lot more easier to describe it in some other way