Would Gollum have been better unanimated?

[Galendor]

Hi all, I'm a new member and this is my first post.

I found the animated portrayal of Gollum in the Jackson movies irritating and distracting. Does anyone agree? To me, the animated Gollum character didn't look "real" in comparison to the other hobbits, and he had an extremely nasal, whining voice. I often cringe when watching/hearing the exaggerated antics and sounds from this animated creation.

I propose that Gollum would have been better portrayed without animation, using movie makeup and costume. Of course, the same effects that made the other hobbits look small would have to be used on the Gollum actor as well (this was convincingly done, in my opinion). Using movie makeup and costume, the unanimated Gollum character could still appear as a small, shriveled, hairless, pale hobbit with sunken eyes and pointy teeth, wearing a loincloth. I think with the right actor, this would have allowed a better portrayal of Gollum, in a fashion more consistent with the other humanoid characters.

It isn't clear to me why Jackson chose to animate Gollumn. Was it necessary (I think not). Was it effective (I say no, animated Gollumn did not look or sound "real" like the other main characters). Perhaps Jackson created animated Gollumn for no better reason than an excuse to use expensive animation technology.

Best Regards, I'm only giving an opinion and do not wish to offend.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Galendor

It isn't clear to me why Jackson chose to animate Gollumn. Was it necessary (I think not). Was it effective (I say no, animated Gollumn did not look or sound "real" like the other main characters). Perhaps Jackson created animated Gollumn for no better reason than an excuse to use expensive animation technology.

.

I think that was a major problem with the movies overall - Jackson put in a lot of unnecessary SFX simply because he could. Without the technology we would have had a much more intimate, 'personal' movie. Jackson strikes me as someone who would only talk to you at a normal level when he couldn't wheel up a massive PA system behind you on a flatbed truck & scream what he wanted to tell you at 50,000 decibels.

(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.)

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[Thinlómien]

Now I can't see the movie Gollum as anything else, but I used to see a big problem with how he was made and now that I think of it, I can still agree with what I first thought when I saw the movie Gollum: he's too cute.

I mean, he is more like a wronged awwwy little creature than a many-layered dangerous ex-hobbit. With those huge blue eyes and cheerful voice, he seems like something cute and little, not treacherous, murderous and cunning. I don't mean that there's nothing good in Gollum, just that he really shouldn't be, of all things, cute. Just consider his age, for example.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Peter Woodthorpe is unbeatable for me too ( the Sam/Frodo/Gollum trio is perhaps the aspect of the Radio version that is definitively better than the film -
.

In the radio documentary 'Fired by the Ring' Peter Woodthorpe was interviewed by Brian Sibley, one of the adaptors of the series, & he stated that they had asked him to do the voice in the movie, but they wanted him to go to New Zealand & he couldn't go (don't know how old he would have been at the time - he's passed away now). Can't help thinking that he would have made the movie.....

[Mithalwen]

He died aged 72 in 2004. And while some people are very active until much later
- Mr Lee being a good example- he gave the impression in later outings (eg Morse) of being someone who might not enjoy the best of health in later life But given what a cut and paste job the whole film was ..it is a pity they did't make it work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

He died aged 72 in 2004. And while some people are very active until much later
- Mr Lee being a good example- he gave the impression in later outings (eg Morse) of being someone who might not enjoy the best of health in later life But given what a cut and paste job the whole film was ..it is a pity they did't make it work.

My dream adaptation of LotR would be a high quality animation using the radio series as soundtrack & just re-doing the sound effects - not beyond the wit of man, surely, after the latest Beowulf adaptation.......

[Mithalwen]

That looks a bit strange ot me - like a computer game. ACtually I think a lot of the visuals - in the films are great - the costumes and armour were lovely and I think here the influence of the obsessive Tolkien fans held sway . I would have like loved to see mallorn properly but I thought the Shire and Rivendell and Gondor were excellent.. and NZ does make a good middle earth. I would recast a few of the voices of the radio - Apart from Robert Stephens - the actress reading Arwen does sound as if she could be 3000 years old and maybe Boromir.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I would recast a few of the voices of the radio - Apart from Robert Stephens - the actress reading Arwen does sound as if she could be 3000 years old and maybe Boromir.

I know what you mean - I found Theoden a bit annoying occasionally (one review I saw described the performance as 'loud & grating'), but I wouldn't lose any of the actors - it would just feel wrong to me if any of them weren't there...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

I know what you mean - I found Theoden a bit annoying occasionally (one review I saw described the performance as 'loud & grating'), but I wouldn't lose any of the actors - it would just feel wrong to me if any of them weren't there...

I have a soft spot for Jack May - he was Nelson Gabriel in the Archers you know... but I was amazed by Bernard Hill - having thought I wouldn't be able to erase Yosser and Mr Shirley Valentine from my mind.

But you do get used to the voices - and it was mostly very clever casting - Merry and Pippin sound young, Sam sounds rural but not yoke,l Legolas distinctive but not camp.

[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

[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.

[Sauron the White]

from Galendor

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]

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]

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.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I think, too, that there is a wide range of opinion regarding how realistic Gollum looks on screen. Bethberry describes him as "a cartoon character", and other Downers have similar views. Again, don't want to discount that, but my viewings of the film have never broken the suspension of disbelief in Gollum. Even now that I've watched the BTS documentaries and seen indepth exactly how they brought him to screen, I have never thought he looks the least bit unrealistic or out of place in the film next to Elijah Wood and Sean Astin.
I do think that calling him a cartoon character is a bit disrespectful to the work done by WETA Digital. So is putting him in the same class with Jar-Jar Binks. Gollum revolutionized the world of CG characterization. You may not like the way he was done, but you can't deny it was one of the more spectacular parts of the groundbreaking innovations the film brought along.

[Galendor]

STW, Hobbits would only be 20 feet tall on screen

I don't think the actor would have to 85 pounds, just very thin and in costume. And like the other hobbit actors, shrunken proportionally in size. And be athletic, and a good actor. Hmmm....

It is true, a real actor Gollum would be quite different from the animated one. Perhaps it would not have worked out as convincingly on screen, we can only speculate. I do applaud the more-or-less realistic animation used to make Jackson's Gollum, I'm sure it was a tour de force of special effects techniques.
As others have suggested, perhaps my problems with the character were more due to script direction than to the animation (if they had just toned the antics down a bit, and no cutesy-Gollum for Pete's sake!). Thank you for making me rethink my opinions, I think I'll watch the movies and give animated Gollumn another chance.

P.S. here is Michael Therriault's Gollum.

[Nerwen]

I thought CGI Gollum was very convincing. As someone else said, he was a bit too "cute", but that's not the fault of the animation– it's how they chose to depict the character, for whatever reason.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I thought CGI Gollum was very convincing. As someone else said, he was a bit too "cute", but that's not the fault of the animation– it's how they chose to depict the character, for whatever reason.

It's to remind the audience that there was still something left of a wholesome, 'cute' Hobbit left in him - Gollum was not simply a revolting, hideous ghoul, he was capable of emotion and thought. The part where Gollum reaches out to Frodo and Tolkien says how anyone looking at the time would have seen a weary Hobbit is good support for this, I think. On the other hand I don't see much of this melancholy, battered creature in Michael Therriault's Gollum, who looks more like a bloodthirsty vampire.

As for the CGI Gollum - while there are moments where it looks a little contrived, for the most part it was a pretty flawless piece of work. When he's climbing on the rocks, fighting with Frodo and Sam - it all looks like a real creature, with real skin and movements. Unlike the Jar Jar Binks rubbish a few years before.

[alatar]

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.

[Nazgûl-king]

I thought the CG Gollum was great! I though he looked very realistic, and as for the voice, I thought the voice fit the character quite well.

[McCaber]

Yeah, Serkis did a great job.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I think the CG Gollum was great. In fact, it remains the best CG character I've ever seen. He looks alive--there's nothing dead behind those eyes the way there sometimes is in other CG. He moves alive--there's nothing inorganic about the way he navigates the world. He sounds alive. Serkis not only did excellently with physicality, but with voice. It's a shame he never really got the recognition he deserved for excelling at what was clearly a very difficult job. He doesn't look too clean-cut or rubbery, the way that a lot of the CG in the newer Star Wars movies does.

Unfortunately, something like Michael Therriault's Gollum wouldn't work onscreen, I don't think. It's all done with stage makeup. He seems to be in shape, but he's not nearly as thin as his makeup suggests. It works onstage, because there's a different kind of suspension of disbelief in theater. In a huge playhouse, he really would come across as skeletal. Unfortunately, the camera sees everything, and in the case of something like that, it would just see someone in makeup. There's also the added disadvantage that whoever they cast would have to look plausible next to Elijah Wood, who is a very small, slight person. There are ways to cheat a lot of size-related things in cinema (and isn't LOTR a testament to that?), but the camera can't make Gollum look much thinner than the actor already is. Not to mention, the actor would have to be, as already discussed, in good phyiscal shape. John Rhys Davies was made to appear much shorter as Gimli, but Gimli is still shaped like JRD. That's why you'll often hear about actors gaining or losing weight for a role. Some of that can be taken care of with creative costuming, but not all of it.

[alatar]

My youngest and I were watching TTT the other night, as, well, it was on and she was up. We watched the scene were Gollum was taken by Faramir's men at the Forbidden Pool, and as this was the theatrical version, we don't get the joy of seeing Gollum being pummeled - tenderized - like so much meat.

Anyway, Gollum hides in a corner and Smeagol and Gollum begin to talk again. Faramir waits in anticipation, as seemingly here's the answer to Frodo's secret. Gollum finally turns, and with all of the venom he has in him, says something then "PRECIOUS!"

My daughter looked at me and said, in her best Gollumy voice, "The monkey said, 'Precious!'"

[zxcvbn]

I noticed that ALL these incarnations of Gollum(including the movies') have one common mistake: they all depict Gollum with greyish skin, instead of the black-skinned creature in the books.