Gollum

wicked · Post by **wicked** » 16 Jan 2003 22:47

I was just watching a news article on Gollum. Supposedly there is a new buzz around hollywood, and the academy, concerning weather or not Gollum should be nominated for a best supporting actor award for The Two Towers. There is contreversy sorrounding the notion of nominating an animated character for a best actors award. Critics argue that this shouldn't be be allowed and that only "real" actors should receive nominations. The stage actor for Gollum, Andy Serkis, actually did all the movements while wearing motion detectors. The movements were captured in real time with 24 cameras sorrounding him. Facial expressions were noted and Andy's actuall voice was used. CGI was added later to Make Smegal complete. I think Gollum should be nominated for best supporting actor, that was an excellent performance. He had to act the scenes out twice, once on location, and the exact same scenes over again in a studio utilizing blue screens. I also think Two Towers should get best picture of 2002.

ToeGuiltless · Post by **ToeGuiltless** » 16 Jan 2003 23:55

his movements are very theatrical, which is related to acting. so i think he does deserve it.

Acid~Reign · Post by **Acid~Reign** » 17 Jan 2003 01:52

Technically I wouldn't have the foggiest. But I still think yes, gollums character comes across very well and I doubt that much, if any, of that is because of technology.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 17 Jan 2003 06:19

Coming from an actors point of veiw, Smeegle did the best acting job in the movie. He had the most character developement and internal conflict, sure, thats because he's two people, but you know. I felt the animation was a nice way to let him be really dramatic sounding without having to match that physically, which can be a challenge. I think they may want to reconsider the no animation rule. (But I like Gandalf too, maybe he should win, or Aaragorn)

HackyRichard · Post by **HackyRichard** » 17 Jan 2003 07:50

I would have to say that Gollum is hands down the best implementation of a cg actor in a live action movie so far. When it gets to the point that you forget there's a cg actor then you know that they've done something right, George Lucas should take notes on how to do this.
And this has to be said, Gollum is less wooden than some "real" actors I've seen, Christopher Lambert, Nick Nolte, and Keanu Reeves all spring to mind (except Keanu was well suited to the bill & ted movies and the matrix movies)
Looks like LOTR will sweep most of the special fx stuff this year, and it should get best movie, and Peter Jackson should win best director this year, he got fucked over last time. I mean you tell me any of the big name directors that could film three films concurrently on a budget of $600 Mil, do it so well and recoup that money on the first movie alone (and the second movie is definitely a more complete movie too). If he doesn't get any recognition then we'll know what a joke the whole awards are.
I liked how they just threw random humour into the wierdest situations too, like the whole dwarf tossing thing was hilarious.
Anyway that's my view, Gollum should definitely be eligible for the one of the "real" actors awards, there was a real actor behind the character, it was a top shelf performance enough said ...

HackyRichard

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Jan 2003 19:56

Don't get fooled by the special effects. Many of the acting performances in the Two towers were woeful, especially from the minor characters. There was also no depth to the movie. How could they give best movie and best director to a movie (and the director of it) that spells out the story line so obviously for the audience? While I agree that visually it was an excellent movie, acadamy awards should not be given out on that basis alone. Smeagollooked good, but was so overdone and predictable.

ToeGuiltless · Post by **ToeGuiltless** » 17 Jan 2003 20:00

smeagul acted precisely how i imagined him to act from the hobbit (the only one i read so far). acting was great, effects were great, storyline was great (duh, it was made from a very popular book), and it deserves every award it will win.

EDIT: if you wanna see movies being made only for special effects, dont see the lord of the rings series.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Jan 2003 20:09

The movies are nothing like the books. There were no scenes in the Two Towers that were taken unchanged from the books, you could almost believe that it wasn't based on LOTRs at all.

ToeGuiltless · Post by **ToeGuiltless** » 17 Jan 2003 20:15

everyone i know that has read the books, like the movie more than those who havent read them.

its not about being picky, no movie can take the place of our imaginations.

but as far as movies go, it deserves the awards because it was better than the rest.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Jan 2003 20:34

Better then the rest? what about Last Orders or The Conversation? They both achieved much more critical acclaim then the Two Towers...

HackyRichard · Post by **HackyRichard** » 17 Jan 2003 21:12

The reason they had to modify scenes from Two Towers, is because they want to maintain continuity with the first movie, which is quite different to the first book, hence the need to change aspects of the second book too.

Are you sure you were watching the Two Towers Jeremy and not the Harry Potter movie?

Obvious plot line, could this be because you've read the books and know what is going to happen, and that maybe everyone else in the audience has to, and that maybe it is a better option to be clear and do the books justice, as opposed to being all overly dramatic/complicated and risk botching it doing a great injustice to a series which has been one of the major literary works in the recent past.

Saying that the movies are nothing like the books is just plain stupid. You show me a movie based on a book (or series or books) that has followed the book to the exact passage. It won't happen, there are certain elements of the written arts that can't be accurately done justice by the primarily visual medium of movies, that is why they have to be adapted so that the best job can be done to give a visual and audio representation of the writing.

But as Chris as rightly said, movies will never be as good as our own imagination, but some do a pretty good job at coming close ...

HackyRichard

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Jan 2003 21:30

Of course no good movie is a complete copy of the book (except for most shakespear anyway) however most movies based on books attempt to have the same atmosphere and style as the book. Fight Club is a great example of this. American Pysco would be another. However it is clear from the outset that both the LOTRs movies are simply action movies with a more complicated then usual plot. Complicated plot does not make a movie deep, and the way the plot is presented is in a very shallow manner. I'm sure everybody who has read the LOTR books at least twice and recently would agree that they are very deep and definitly not action books.

Continuity had nothing to do with the changes to the plot concerning Theoden, Eomer, Treebeard, Merry and Pippin and especially Gimli.

While they did add some slapstick and fairly low brow humour, they removed much of the humour from the book, obviously because they were targeting the movie at a very low audience and didn't want to attmept to appeal to more then one level of intelligence.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 17 Jan 2003 22:00

speaking of fantasy heres a screen shot from the new oops video in progress

Noah Jay-Bonn · Post by **Noah Jay-Bonn** » 17 Jan 2003 23:02

What did you want them to do Jeremy? Add 3 hours of narration about the history of Middle Earth and the theologies behind the races? You must admit that there were some boring parts in the LOTR trilogy that would not be worth viewing. Plus they only have so much time to cover the entire book-- details must be omitted! I thought they did a fine job in portraying the book and caught the overall feel of the book.

Noah

ToeGuiltless · Post by **ToeGuiltless** » 17 Jan 2003 23:06

i just watched the extra features disk, and they said they were lucky to get even 3 movies. miramax said they can only do 1 movie, but they fought to get 3. BE HAPPY DAMNIT!

HackyRichard · Post by **HackyRichard** » 17 Jan 2003 23:30

I guess that was the influence of hollywood, tone it down so that the general public can understand it without having to think too hard. A pity really because, even though I"ve only read the first book, it's not that hard to comprehend and follow the plot and character development.

They've obviously chosen to emphasise the action aspect because the deeper more intellectual sides of the plot, are very hard to capture and accurately portray in film, and imagine how long the films would be if they had tried to incorporate all the plot twists and the like (again sadly a product of the hollywood influence, the shorter the film the more viewings can be shown per day more bums in seats = more $). But I suspect that no matter what there is just no satisfying everyone

On a completely unrelated, I reckon the crocodile hunter would be a mad shredder, he'd have some crazy reaction speed with all that croc wrangling ...

HackyRichard

ToeGuiltless · Post by **ToeGuiltless** » 17 Jan 2003 23:58

i doubt the directors primary goal was "short film = more money".
its long for a movie, and no-one here has the right to bag on it.

HackyRichard · Post by **HackyRichard** » 18 Jan 2003 00:56

No definitely not the director, but that is always the bottom line with the film studios.
I don't care how long a film is, as long as it's able to hold my attention, both LOTR movies have done that, moreso the second one because I never saw the first one at the movies. And not many other movie which is of comparable length have managed that.
I'm not bagging the movie, in fact it just shows you how you can make a kick ass movie, on a (comparatively) small budget, without all the crap involved with overpaid, over-hyped actors and all the other associated ego stroking and shit.

HackyRichard

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 18 Jan 2003 09:08

You wanna talk about hold your attention, that movies the only time I've ever had my eyes open for more than :30 secs while making out.

madshred2003 · Post by **madshred2003** » 18 Jan 2003 19:47

i think gollum should definatly win this. his voice was so amazing for this part. it's just as good as seeing the real him i think...

Gollum

Should Gollum (or an animated actor) be nominated for best actor?

Gollum