I fear that PJ has failed or : "The Gollum situation"

[Balin999]

What I mean by this is that I fear that many people who have seen the movies and not read the books have not gotten the idea behind Gollum/Smeagol at all.<P>I had some discussions with some of my friends who have not read the books during the last week and some have actually told me that they think that Gollum is "sweet"!<BR>Now that worries me a lot, since they obviously don't understand the whole Gollum problem. Of course, he is played very well, he is a pitiful creature, but he is definitely NOT "sweet"!<BR>My theory is that PJ (and his writers) have not explained the role of Gollum and his background too well, because some people don't understand why he can't be cute or sweet at all. He has murdered countless orcs during his life in Moria, and his Gollum part is rotten and can't be cured, and is therefore a threat to everyone who gets too near. <BR>Of course, there is still some Smeagol left, but, as we readers already know, there can't be no escape for Gollum, he is too "addicted" to the ring. That's why he betrays Frodo in the end, who fails himself by claiming the ring for his own.<BR>Now, how will people react when Gollum falls down the cliff? I fear that they won't understand that there is no cure for Gollum. Of course, there will be some "oooohs" and "aaaahs", but not because he is so pitiful, but because they want him to stay alive because he is so "sweet".<BR>What are your opinions?

[The Saucepan Man]

I believe that RotK will start with a flashback to Deagol's initial discovery of the Ring and his murder by Smeagol. Not long after that, we will see Gollum lead Frodo and Sam into what he hopes will be a gruesome death for them.<P>Doesn't seem to me like they'll be playing the "sympathy for Gollum" card too much in this film. I think that they wanted people to think that he might be capable of redemption in TTT, but he's gone past that point in RotK.

[Aethelwine]

I agree with you, <B>Balin</B>.<P>Me myself thought that movie-Gollem was sweet, even though I've read the books (a couple of times)<P>The best explanation for this (at least for me), beside the fact you already mentioned of him having not enough background, is that fact that the made him more human-like. I don't know where I heard it, but in a documentary PJ said that they made him just that, more human-like. Something thats really close to us humans, is probably easy regarded as 'cute', or 'sweet'.<BR>Also, when I read the books, I imagined him as a slimey, filthy creature. <I>Not</I> very loveble, anyway. But the Gollem we find in the movies is much more... hmmm, how do you say this... "nicer looking"?<BR>And last thing, also when I read the books, I never thought that 'Gollem' was away for just one second... More like 'Gollem' speaking through 'Smeagol', like with a mask. But in the movies, Gollem actually doesn't surface for some time, so, for non readers, he's not evil anymore. <BR>Oh, and also the way he dances and stuff, makes him 'cute'.<P>Well, that's my opinion anyway...<P>Bye!<P>Aethelwine.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> that fact that the made him more human-like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But he is supposed to have originally been of Hobbit kind. Personally, I think that they got the look just right. As I said, while he is slightly comical and semi-appealing in TTT (and intentionally so), I suspect that we shall see a different side of him in Rotk.<P>Incidentally, you may find <A HREF="http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1069751498.html" TARGET=_blank>this</A> extract from a forthcoming book by Andy Serkis interesting on the question of Gollum's portrayal in RotK.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I have found that people think that when they've read the books as well (including people who read the books first, or read them years ago). I know lots of book readers that love Gollum and pity him, and they generally think that Gollum is sweet. I don't think it has anything to do with the movies, alone, at all. So, I don't think that PJ failed. Reading the books is all a matter of perception. PJ has filled some people's perceptions to a tee, but perhaps he has failed those who had a different perception of Gollum in the first place. You can easily take what you will from dialogue in a book and make that character your own and in your own fashion... but you can't do that in film because it's just presented to you. You have to accept the filmmakers'/actor's final decision on the character... there is less to perceive.<BR>I, personally, dislike the character in both... but that's just me. Perhaps I'm not as forgiving as Frodo in respect of Gollum... I view him more as Sam does.

[mark12_30]

Tolkien said in one of his letters that he was deeply saddened by Sam's rough intervention when Smeagol came so close to truly repenting when he came on Frodo and Sam asleep. "Nothing, nothing.... nice master." Sam snaps suspiciously at him; and the moment is gone forever.<P>Tolkien stated that that moment was genuine. It was a long shot, but Smeagol was redeemable-- and remember, that was on his RETURN from bargaining with Shelob.<P>Seeing Smeagol as utterly despiccable is to miss the awakening that Frodo himself went through. "It's a pity that Bilbo didn't stab him when he had a chance." "Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand." <P>"For now that I see him, I do pity him."<P>For the professor's fascinating perspective on Smeagol's redeemability, see Tolkien's letters. He discusses this in depth.

[Enorëiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Tolkien said in one of his letters that he was deeply saddened by Sam's rough intervention when Smeagol came so close to truly repenting when he came on Frodo and Sam asleep. "Nothing, nothing.... nice master." Sam snaps suspiciously at him; and the moment is gone forever.<P>Tolkien stated that that moment was genuine. It was a long shot, but Smeagol was redeemable-- and remember, that was on his RETURN from bargaining with Shelob.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You read my mind exactly! That's just what I was going to bring up (but since you've said all that needs to be said... I'll just simply agree )<P>Gollum always struck me as a pitiful creature both in the book and in the movie. It seems to me, however, that the movie did make Gollum a bit more 'cute'. He's different then what I had pictured when I read the books, not a lot, but a little. I pictured a more ugly (sorry Gollum)and cruel creature. I do somewhat agree with Tigerlily Gamgee though. There are parts of movie where I can see the creature that I imagined when I was reading.<P>I believe that once ROTK comes out and everyone sees the Shelob scene, people's ideas may change concerning the 'cuteness' of Gollum.

[Lyta_Underhill]

From the Serkis article so helpfully linked by <B>The Saucepan Man</B> above: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>that we turn it all on its head so that Smeagol was really the cold calculating passive-aggressive psychopath who play acted being the victim to get his own way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wonder about this idea, mainly because I think Tolkien also said somewhere in his letters that the Ring would not have gained such quick power over Smeagol had he not been a mean sort of creature to begin with. Perhaps this is a rough description of the original nature of Smeagol when he obtained the Ring. From small hints, I've gathered that throughout his time hidden in the Misty Mountains, Gollum is tormented by the murder what he done to get the Ring, but of course, also glad he did it, for he now has the Ring. <P>From the split personality scenes in TTT it seems to me that this is one thing the Ring and the corrupt Gollum hold over Smeagol, and even if Smeagol IS still the mean sort who just as soon kill you as look at you, he probably regrets this one long ago murder. But, I think (it has been awhile since I looked) Tolkien tells us in the Letters that there is too little stability in his good impulses, that the fragile moment in ROTK when Sam snaps at him throws him back into his evil purpose precisely because there is so little good to match the evil he has done; that it cannot be supported within him, and Sam breaks the thread at that fragile point. It would be nice to see this on film, but I imagine it is too difficult to portray cinematically, and we are following broader strokes in the adaptation...<P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta<p>[ 12:03 PM November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[Arathiriel]

I for one don't find Gollum as "sweet" in either the books or the movies! I know what he is up to throughout the entire journey and everytime Frodo trusts him I want to yell at him and say "Would you LISTEN to Sam already? He's plotting to murder the BOTH of you!"<P>Oh and if anyone thinks Gollum is sweet they need to see the ROTK trailer where he gives Sam that EVIL smile after Frodo refuses again to live him behind!<P>Oh but yes, preciousss, Gollum is ANYTHING but sweet!!!

[Balin999]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I had played Gollum as someone who, at the end of the day, no matter what he'd done, was a very sick addict and was redeemable because he was the victim of a powerful force that he couldn't handle. Now we were looking at a character who is pure evil, past all redemption. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's actually what many members here have agreed on in many discussions: That no matter if Smeagol or Gollum, both are beyond hope. Nothing can change them for long. Of course, there was this ray of light which was destroyed by Sam, but in the end, both Smeagol and Gollum would have killed Frodo. They have been under control of the ring too long.<P>As for my view of Gollum, I never though he was "sweet" as some people do. I was more thinking the same way as Sam. <BR>And Saucepan Man, you gave me some hope back, for many people will change their opinion after the Rotk. At least I hope so.<BR>Gollum is not sweet! <BR>

[Rose Cotton]

Actually, Gollum's character in the movies was exactly how I imagined him in the books. <P>Sure, Gollum wasn't the most moral or nice looking creature in the world but I always thought of him as a sorrowful character rather then a cruel one. <P>If you watch the part of the Extended DVD about Gollum you can see their first design of him. He was slimey, dark and looking quite capable of horrible deeds. But he was also very one dimentional. I think that the sympathetic Gollum is much more desireable. He actually goes through a journey and is almost redeemed. <P>It's all about perspective. Some people are going to think Gollum is sweet. While others will think he's twisted. It has nothing to do with the movies.

[ArathorofBarahir]

I think that people's opinion of Gollum will change greatly after they realize that he lead Frodo and Sam into Shelob's Lair.

[The Only Real Estel]

I was listening to the 2nd disc of TTT with the cast commentary, & this very issue came up. Someone mentioned that Smeagol was such a wretched creture, tortured by Gollum, etc., & that you couldn't help but feel sorry for him. They also said in some scenes he was 'sweet' . Actually, they where pretty close to right, in the movies. Luckily Billy Boyd put everything in prespective by reminding them that, "...but, way back, when he first found the Ring, he murdered his cousin for it!" I think that's a point thats inclusion in RotK will hopefully change peoples opinions on him. And, as others have already brought up, after the Shelob scheme is laid bare, I think you'll see far less tears when he dies (if any). Hopefully PJ can get him right in RotK...

[Iris Alantiel]

I think that getting the viewer to sympathize with Gollum kind of adds to the movie in some ways. When Frodo first meets Gollum face to face in TTT, he feels enough pity for this warped, twisted creature to keep him alive. I think a sympathetic Gollum makes the audience more understanding of Frodo's decision not to kill Gollum; we feel pity for him, too. It's a technique that puts us more in line with Frodo's feelings and makes us identify with him.<P>I would say the negative effect of that device is they kind of made Sam look like a real jerk at times in the last movie. That was sad, because Sam's always been my favourite. But in the preview for ROTK, when Gollum turns and gives Sam that really mean look, they made Gollum look worse and made Sam look sadder (you just want to give him a hug), so maybe that won't happen again in this moive.<P>And yeah, definitely, if someone tried to feed me to a giant spider, I wouldn't care how big and blue and sad their eyes are, they would not seem very cute or sympathetic to me.

[Diamond18]

I loved Gollum in the book and "The Hobbit". He was one of my favorite characters, and at times I did think of him as cute and, yes, in an unsettling kind of way, sweet. I had actually worried a little that these things I enjoyed about his character would not come through in the movie—that they would be tempted to make him overly grotesque and utterly inhuman. There were many times in reading the book that I wanted to shake Sam for being mean to him, and I hoped up until the very last that he would somehow redeem himself and turn from the Ring. Since he didn't, I have forgiven Sam for his justifiable attitude, but I can safely say that all this took place before ever seeing the movie.<P>So therefore I agree with those who say it's a matter of perception. Gollum has always been a controversial character, some love him, some hate him, some fall in between. I did picture him as uglier (blue eyes? come on...) in a physical sense, but I was thrilled with the softer, funnier sides portrayed in the film. Perhaps that's why those who have been on the other side, the less sympathetic view of Gollum, are displeased with the depiction. Our perception is somewhat more controlled by the creator in a movie setting, but that's inevitable. If Gollum had been portrayed to Balin's ideal, there would be some of us upset that PJ "villified" Gollum too much.

[Balin999]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I would say the negative effect of that device is they kind of made Sam look like a real jerk at times in the last movie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I guess that was done to show the effects of the ring. there is this scene in TTT (well, of course in TTT) where Frodo asks Sam why he always shouts at Gollum. Sam replies that he is a wicked creature and all that and then Frodo tells him that he doesn't understand at all what it's like to carry the ring. I'm not sure if that was in the books, but by that they have shown that Frodo understands Gollum more than Sam and therefore pities him. <P>Well I have never said that I didn't like Gollum at all. In the books I felt sorry for him, though I was always suspicious, and we all know how the story ended <BR>When I saw Gollum in the movies I nearly started crying (and usually I don't cry in movies) because I was overwhelmed with the way he was portrayed. <BR>And of course I thought it was funny when he said "stupid fat hobbit" and danced around or especially the look he gives Frodo and Sam when he tries to catch that fish (the scene where Andy Serkis had to swim or paddle through that ice-cold water).<BR>But I never thought that he was "sweet". Now, after reading through this discussion, I have to admit that I was a bit "hasty" and couldn't imagine that any book-reader could find him sweet. I just saw it as a danger that movie-goers could missunderstand the whole character of Gollum.<BR>But, of course, we will teach them in RotK, my precious, we will! *gollum*<BR>(Btw, I love that sound that Andy Serkis does in the English-version. It sounds really crappy in the German version)

[Lord of Angmar]

I agree with Saucepan and a few others in this particular discussion in the theory that any misconceptions by non-Tolkien readers about Gollum's "sweetness" cannot be attributed to a failure on Peter Jackson's part. I thoroughly enjoyed Gollum's part in the Two Towers, but it did not make me like him any more or less.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I wonder about this idea, mainly because I think Tolkien also said somewhere in his letters that the Ring would not have gained such quick power over Smeagol had he not been a mean sort of creature to begin with.(Lyta)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I disagree with the idea that Gollum was definitely a "mean sort of creature" before he got the Ring because he killed Deagol for the Ring. After all, look at Boromir. Though he may have been proud and sometimes wilfull, I would certainly not call him "mean," and yet he probably would have taken Frodo's life to get the Ring had Frodo not escaped. It seems to me that in Smeagol's case, that one act of murder, caught up in a sudden lust for the Ring, was enough to attach him to the Ring and to corrupt him. I see his action towards Deagol as not necessarily a function of Smeagol's negative tendencies (although I am sure he had many). This is rather a digression from the initial subject, but I do hope that, in the opening sequence of the Return of the King movie in which Smeagol murders Deagol, Smeagol is not portrayed as wholly or mostly Gollum-ish to begin with.

[Lyta_Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I disagree with the idea that Gollum was definitely a "mean sort of creature" before he got the Ring because he killed Deagol for the Ring. After all, look at Boromir. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't think that Gollum is like Boromir in character. The thing they have in common is the Ring gains power over them. It does so in different ways. Boromir is definitely not mean, although he does have a measure of blindness. He is noble and valiant and, just...wrong about the Ring. <P>Smeagol, on the other hand, made use of the Ring for mean purposes, such as terrorizing his grandmother's household by using it to play pranks while invisible. (I think that was in the Letters too; I'll have to dig those out soon to come up with references!) But Tolkien definitely says that Gollum was a "mean sort" when the Ring comes within his grasp. Otherwise he would not have killed Deagol outright for it. Contrast that to Boromir's slow burn and how fleeting was the complete dominion of the Ring over him when it came down to it. <P>I think that Gollum began as this "mean sort" and the utter desolation with which the Ring leaves him in the Misty Mountains has left him plenty of time for reflection on his heinous deed. I'm sure the murder of Deagol haunts him and causes him to reconsider and wish he could turn to the good, but evil has held him so long, he is lost and does not know how to do it. This is sad in itself, a tragic characteristic, but the fact remains, that the impulse to good on Gollum's part is VERY fragile for this same reason, and Sam's outburst would not have turned a normal being sharply to the purpose of evil. Gollum's past evil definitely counts against him and in this way rules his present and future actions.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is rather a digression from the initial subject, but I do hope that, in the opening sequence of the Return of the King movie in which Smeagol murders Deagol, Smeagol is not portrayed as wholly or mostly Gollum-ish to begin with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oops! You're right! And I'm guilty too! I imagine it is a hard scene to portray, and it will be interesting to see how Smeagol comes to his decision to take the Ring from Deagol. Perhaps a struggle and he accidentally kills his friend? That would make it more poignant...oh well! I don't have long to wait! <P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta

[Lady Alasse]

In the Books I hated Gollum with a passion. but then I watched TTT and began to feel sorry for him. Then I reread the books and discovered that Gollum actually was quite a bit like they portrayed him in the movie. In one of the letter's of Tolkein he says that Gollum would have repented if it hadn't been for Sam's mean comment. It said that he would have gone to Mount Doom with them then the ring would have taken him and Gollum would have taken it (at mount doom) and knowing that it should be destroyed would have jumped into mount doom with the ring.

[Lyta_Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It said that he would have gone to Mount Doom with them then the ring would have taken him and Gollum would have taken it (at mount doom) and knowing that it should be destroyed would have jumped into mount doom with the ring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Did Tolkien say this? I must have missed that part. Certainly Gollum would not have wanted Sauron to have the Ring. Perhaps he would have fallen in at the last, even without the struggle with Frodo at the Sammath Naur, as the words of Frodo foretold, for the Ring had abandoned Gollum and would not suffer him to possess it again. I can't see Gollum throwing himself into the Fire for any other purpose than desperation, to keep Sauron from getting the Ring--and he would be appalled at the very idea of destroying it.<P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta

[mark12_30]

From letter 246 on page 330, after a discussion of Gollum's love for Master Frodo and his near repentance, blighted by Sam.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'posession' satisfied, I think he would have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and <I>voluntarily</I> cast himself into the fiery abyss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The letter continues in a profound, moving and eye-opening analysis of Frodo's claiming the Ring on Mount Doom. <P>Generally speaking: if questions like this intrigue you and you do not have a copy of Tolkien's letters, get one. Aside from the Trilogy itself, it is the most valuable asset to understanding Tolkien's works.<P>Edit: In terms of Smeagol's method of aquiring the Ring (via bloodshed, and of a near kin at that) Gandalf himself implicitly contrasts Semagol's behavior with Bilbo's in The Shadow Of The Past, (page 58 of the omnibus or) page 85 of Fellowship, when he states:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It follows logically that Smeagol took plenty of harm from the Ring, and does not escape its evil, because he began his ownership of the Ring not with Pity but with murder.<p>[ 3:18 PM December 06, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[doug*platypus]

A very good thread to start, Balin, cheers very much. Although on the surface it may seem that bookGollum and movieGollum are pretty much one and the same, there are subtle but very important distinctions. While I wouldn't say simply that "PJ has failed", you are right in thinking that he (or rather the three-headed scriptwriting team of PJ/FW/PB) have failed to portray the nuances of the character as they were given to us in the books.<P>After seeing TTT three things struck me the most about the movie character:<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Gollum's face altered to appear more human.<LI>Gollum's character strongly polarised.<LI>That loincloth is too damm small !</UL>The most important of these is the polarisation of his character. Yes, Gollum and Sméagol are two separate, recognisable facets of this weird little being. No, they are not completely separate entities inhabiting the same body. To imply this (especially in the classic, brilliant debate scene) is to refuse to admit that one person can have both these characters. The writers have torn apart these two parts of the character and given them a separate role. So in the movie we see a character who is fiercer and more terrifying, but at the same time more charming and yes even sweet. <P>The character in the book was not so strongly polarised or extreme. His personality did change depending on circumstances and on the stage of the journey, but it was more subtly done than in the movies. And the whole time there was an overriding personality, basic mannerisms and parts of speech that remained constant. The evil character in the book was never completely evil, likewise the good character was never completely good. In the movie Gollum appears to change to Sméagol with the flick of a switch, and no character has a trace of the other. In my opinion this is a dramatic alteration. The team's plans for ROTK only further prove this. It is absolutely ridiculous to have two significantly different character developments for what is undeniably one character.<P>The definitive appearance will for me always be the Alan Lee version. Gollum is emaciated, famisshed yes famisshed, with elongated features and unnatural eyes. Tolkien is always careful to describe him as not looking quite like anything else. He is described as frog like, spider like or even like a starved child (if seen by a passing bird). By the time Frodo and Sam encounter him, there is very little hobbit left in his appearance. Tolkien's characters resemble their appearance. Evil is usually ugly or marred in some way, and good (particularly the elves) are beautiful to all the senses. Changing the appearance of Gollum IS changing his character, and I don't believe that the movie representation is accurately taken from the books. Gollum should be pitiable, but not cute. He is not a mean old man, he is a twisted, evil, wretched but pitiable creature. At least he is in the books.

[Balin999]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the movie Gollum appears to change to Sméagol with the flick of a switch, and no character has a trace of the other. In my opinion this is a dramatic alteration. The team's plans for ROTK only further prove this. It is absolutely ridiculous to have two significantly different character developments for what is undeniably one character.<BR>[...]<P>Gollum should be pitiable, but not cute. He is not a mean old man, he is a twisted, evil, wretched but pitiable creature. At least he is in the books. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That was very well said, doug*platypus! I thought that this thread was already dead by now. But I'm glad that someone else is completely sharing my opinion.<P>And just now I remembered this movie- scene in the end when Gollum says "She could do it". <BR>I think that there are many movie-goers who could not understand that last scene (of course, if they haven't read the book) and therefore have forgotten about it, thus only remembering Gollums/Smeagols sweetness. They forgot that Golgol or Smealum as you could call him is obviously planning some mischief. <BR>Well, their eyes will be opened soon enough.<BR>But maybe it was not right to show Gollum as a "cute" and more or less harmless character in the beginning and then twist him around 180° in the RotK. We will see, precious, we will see.