Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
Maybe I should bring my old signature back from the dead than. 
I was more impressed by Andy Serkis' performance than anything else. I got the sense that not only was he committed and liked doing what he did (eventhough if it meant wading down a quasi-frozen river several times until the scene was 'right' for Peter Jackson). But also when he talked about the Ring being like a 'drug' (or anything for that matter which creates an addiction) was a nice way of describing the 'lust' of the Ring. Basically, I got the sense that Serkis understood his character and liked what he was doing, so Gollum came off well. (I have no clue where Jackson - or whoever decided - got the idea for Gollum's appearance, but whatever). |
Yes, what brought Gollum to life was that superior performance by Andy Serkis - but then he is one of our best actors, and quite under-rated to my mind, mostly as he usually sticks to low budget films/TV - he is simply
ace in
24 Hour Party People.
I've been thinking recently that the CGI on Gollum is starting to look dated already! Which is not to say the CGI was bad (oh no) just that it has moved on in leaps and bounds since then - what will 'hold' the portrayal in years to come is the work of Andy Serkis. Funny to think that he based a lot of the voice on the sound of a cat coughing up a furball (whereas Viggo Mortensen no doubt did not have that in mind when he said Mordor/Morgul/Whateveritwas in that funny way).
But anyway...
To my mind, the portrayal of Gollum could have been done in any number of ways. We're discussing if PJ kept to the way it was done in the books, but none of us have ever, and will ever agree on Gollum's character anyway. The 'split personality' reading is one that some people get from the books anyway, as is the idea that the Ring was the primary corrupting force behind Gollum's drive.
Jackson of course was working in film, an unsubtle medium, and had to settle on a defined way of explaining Gollum and his motivation. Tolkien had the luxury of some 1,000 pages in which to be ambivalent.
I do find it fascinating that so many people I know who have never read the books, found the character of Gollum as seen in the films as 'cute'; surely there's some meat for discussion in that?