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

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.

Sauron the White · 11-20-2007, 05:03 PM

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 · 11-20-2007, 10:17 PM

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 · 11-20-2007, 11:50 PM

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.

Sauron the White · 11-21-2007, 07:59 AM

from Galendor

Quote:

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

You do realize that in order to do this Bloom spent the better part of a day or two hanging from ropes on walls and doing some very strenuous and athletic things so the filmmakers could get what they wanted? I do not imagine that a emaciated 85 pound actor could perform the various strenuous and athletic antics necessary to capture the movements of Gollum.

Bêthberry · 11-21-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You do realize that in order to do this Bloom spent the better part of a day or two hanging from ropes on walls and doing some very strenuous and athletic things so the filmmakers could get what they wanted? I do not imagine that a emaciated 85 pound actor could perform the various strenuous and athletic antics necessary to capture the movements of Gollum.

I've seen an actor who is also an accomplished gymnast do a fascinating Gollem on stage--no it wasn't that dreadful musical but a play based on The Hobbit some years prior to the movies coming out. He was taller than I would have imagined Gollem, but his movements were fascinating, credible, utterly convincing. I can also think of several dancers, also trained actors, who could do it.

It would have been more respectful of Tolkien's mythology, I think, to have a human actor portray Gollem and not have this tortured soul depicted like a cartoon character. Not that I'm against cartoons by any means, but it lessened the ethical issue by distancing the character from Frodo and the others.

Sauron the White · 11-21-2007, 12:07 PM

Bethberry ... yes, I understand what you are saying and saw much the same thing with the Toronto actor who played Gollum. I do think there is a huge difference between a lean actor on stage and a character in a movie who is 40 feet tall. On stage you can get away with a great deal due to make-up and lighting effects and the audience is so much farther away. The actors appear so much "smaller than life". The opposite is true in a film. Because of the size of the screen, actors are many times larger than life. You just cannot take someone who is more or less of normal build and turn them into an 85 pound emaciated concentration camp victim, then ask them to do acrobatic and athletic feats and fool anybody into thinking its real.

What this really comes down to is NOT the idea of a CGI character or a real actor or animation or anything else. It comes down to the question of did Gollum in the film work as presented? For me, and I can only speak for myself, it was a huge success. It worked perfectly and I could not ask for more. The Jackson idea of taking Andy Serkis and filming him as Gollum and then layering the CGI character over that was an ideal combination of the two approaches.

alatar · 11-27-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

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.

Methinks that you have me confused with another film critic, as I never have anything good to say about anything.

But in this case, I think that PJ got it spot on. Rarely, if ever, did I think that Gollum was not a living breathing soul. When he was beaten by Faramir's thugs, I cringed and felt sorry for the poor wretch. When Smeagol and Gollum debated, I was fascinated. The mo-cap CG work was incredible. Andy Serkis did wonderful work with the voice as well. The sorry thing is that few people will, in later ages, recognize Serkis on the street as 'that Gollum dude.' Hats off to WETA, Serkis and Jackson.

11-20-2007, 10:17 PM	#3
Galendor Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Mirkwood, NC Posts: 66	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. __________________ Time is the mind, the hand that makes (fingers on harpstrings, hero-swords, the acts, the eyes of queens).

11-20-2007, 11:50 PM	#4
Elladan and Elrohir Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Halls of Mandos Posts: 332	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. __________________ "If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door." THE HOBBIT - IT'S COMING

11-20-2007, 05:03 PM	#2
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	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.

11-21-2007, 12:07 PM	#7
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Bethberry ... yes, I understand what you are saying and saw much the same thing with the Toronto actor who played Gollum. I do think there is a huge difference between a lean actor on stage and a character in a movie who is 40 feet tall. On stage you can get away with a great deal due to make-up and lighting effects and the audience is so much farther away. The actors appear so much "smaller than life". The opposite is true in a film. Because of the size of the screen, actors are many times larger than life. You just cannot take someone who is more or less of normal build and turn them into an 85 pound emaciated concentration camp victim, then ask them to do acrobatic and athletic feats and fool anybody into thinking its real. What this really comes down to is NOT the idea of a CGI character or a real actor or animation or anything else. It comes down to the question of did Gollum in the film work as presented? For me, and I can only speak for myself, it was a huge success. It worked perfectly and I could not ask for more. The Jackson idea of taking Andy Serkis and filming him as Gollum and then layering the CGI character over that was an ideal combination of the two approaches.