Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Andy "Gollum" Serkis Speaks

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the we-loves-to-reads-it dept.

Jondor writes "The BBC has an article in which Andy Serkis answers questions about his role as Gollum. Can't wait so spend a whole 9 hours watching for the full DVD release of LOTR!"

16 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. heh...roll by fjordboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...his roll as Gollum"

    hehe..."Roll."

    Besides the typo, I think Andy Serkis did an excellent job. Watching the Oscars get handed out tonight will probably be an unfortunate reminder to Serkis that the Academy just isn't ready for a computer generated actor.

    I think Gollum's performance was amazing, and after reading about it on lordoftherings.net and watching the little video about Andy Serkis (and from the bonus footage on FoTR), I think it is simply amazing how everything down to the facial expressions came from a real actor. That's just incredible.

    --
    The anti-salmon
    1. Re:heh...roll by Pike65 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I never realised quite how much he did do for the part - I just assumed he was a voice actor. I always thought the whole Serkis-for-Oscar-nomination-please people were just being facetious, but I'm inclined to agree with them now.

      In a completely different direction, how did they do the compositing if he was actually in the original shots? Erase him out and then stick Gollum in? Seems like a lot of work.

      That reminds of something the DVD commentry when Bilbo is invisible and running back to Bag End. Either Dominic Monaghan or Billy Boyd said that they shot the scene with Ian Holm in it and then edited him out. I was never quite sure if they were taking the piss or not . . .

      --
      "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
  2. In his spare time.. by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But in my time off I love to go - there's great walking and climbing to do and I go horse riding and canoeing, the scenery's absolutely stunning and so much varied scenery, it's just a wonderful place to explore.

    I would love to visit (or even live in) New Zealand. Unfortunately, it's a quick couple thousand for plane tickets. As for the immigration, they have a lovely point system to keep unscrupulous people out (as well as eldery from using it as a retirement center) -- way to go NZ!

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
    1. Re:In his spare time.. by donnz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As an immigrant I can definately agree that would NZ benefit from more of us! Seeing the xenophiobic discussion in /. during the recent H1-B story made me think we were not alone with stupid immigration laws and attitudes. I won't even go close to that troll from Australia...

      On topic, there has been a great LOTR exhipition in Wellington at Te Papa (the Natinal Museum). Lots of vidoe clips, that I guess will come out on DVD, explaining how things were done, along with costumes and props. The best video was the one showing a clip of Gollum from the film against Sarkis. They took the entire movement and facial expressions from him. He was shot three times over, at least for each scene. Once with the other actors (that's him wrestling with Sam), once doing all the physical movements so that they could animate Gollum accurately and once doing the voice overs and facial expressions.

      I wish we'd designed the web site!
      -------------

      --
      -- Free software on every PC on every desk
  3. I Found it interesting by mesach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when I watched some sort of "the making of" that golum looks like a strung out version of him...

    I know that animators some times get thier inspiration from the voices of the actors (Jeremy Irons as Scar in the Lion King), and that he also did the acting for it, but this was uncanny

    --
    moo.
  4. The only important tidbit... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...comes at the end of the interview. Apparently, there is talk about the Hobbit being done as a TV miniseries. Andy replies to this by saying, "Well I'd heard that it wasn't a TV series, that it was going to be another movie but I mean there have been various rumours about it." Whatever the case, it looks like my LOTR DVD collection will eventually include the Hobbit. I hope Ian reprises his role.

    --
    My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
  5. Spoiler Alert! by po8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Philip: How do you see your character developing in the Return of the King?

    Andy Serkis: I don't want to give too much away actually...

    Insightful question (remember, this is the adult interviewer asking) and answer. Now that he's seen the scripts, just think how much money Serkis could make selling the secret ending to LotR!

    [Please tell me the above is just a joke, BTW. They wouldn't change the ending. Would they?]

  6. I always preferred Brother Theodore's voice myself by Faust7 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Not meant as a knock against Serkis or anything, I think he did a fantastic job, but for me the definitive voice of Gollum has always been Brother Theodore from the animated films. It was rough, accented, relentless, and always carried a faint flavor of the disrepute that eventually overtook Gollum's character (under-the-surface foreshadowing, love it). By comparison I found Serkis' voice to be squeaky and just not quite as substantial, though very well-acted nevertheless.

    If you're wondering who Brother Theodore is, here's his filmography. I remeber him best from The 'Burbs as the acerbic Uncle Reuben Klopek, for whom he uses nearly the same voice as he did for Gollum.

    --
    The coolest voice ever.
  7. Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I hear so much praise heaped on these movies, I get the feeling that most people didn't enjoy Tolkien's books for the reasons that I enjoyed them.

    I liked reading Tolkien because of the atmosphere and mythos he was able to create. I enjoyed how he was able to tie together familiar myths and legends into a new and beautiful work.

    Jackson's movies simply don't share Tolkien's atmosphere. All they seem to share are hobbits, dwarves, elves, orcs, and what not. In fact the movies ultimately fail, in my opinion, because Jackson doesn't recognize that he can't replicate the books on screen and fails to supply the necessary artistic imagination of his own to flesh out the work. What he does add or change is filler. If you are going to adapt a written work for the screen, do it like Kubrick did so often. Ditch the plot and show them what you can make of the work yourself.

    But most people really enjoyed the movies. So do they like Tolkien just because he uses words like 'Ent' and 'Balrog'? It makes me feel a little bit alone.

    1. Re:Hmm by humblecoder · · Score: 4, Interesting


      In fact the movies ultimately fail, in my opinion, because Jackson doesn't recognize that he can't replicate the books on screen and fails to supply the necessary artistic imagination of his own to flesh out the work. What he does add or change is filler. If you are going to adapt a written work for the screen, do it like Kubrick did so often. Ditch the plot and show them what you can make of the work yourself.

      And if Jackson had done that, you'd probably have somebody screaming bloody murder that he dared to alter the holy canon of Tolkien. Of yeah, I forgot... in fact you did have people complaining about the changes and omissions (i.e. Bombadil's omission, increased role for Arwen, etc, etc). It goes to show that you can't please everyone, so you might as well concentrate on pleasing yourself. Judging by the interviews I've seen with Peter Jackson, I'd say he was very happy with the final product.

      As far as the Jackson-Kubrik comparison goes, Kubrick had the luxury of adapting books that weren't nearly as popular as the Lord of the Ring books. I mean, how many people have actually read _2001_ or _Clockwork Orange_ or even _The Shining_? I would wager that if you add up the number of people who have read these books combined, the total would be nowhere near the number who have read LOTR. In that sense, he was limited in what he could do.

      To be honest, I am impressed that Jackson was able to inbue the movie with the spirit of the books as much as he did. I was very skeptical when I heard that LOTR was coming out as a film. It didn't seem like the type of books that could be adapted to film, given their scope. However, I thought that he did an admirable job of capturing their feel, given the limitations of the medium. In particular, I thought that the art direction, the sets, and the cinematography really captured the "atmosphere" in the same way that Tolkiens prose did. Apparently, Jackson hired two well known "Tolkien" artists to head up the art direction on the film. They were in charge of the overall designs for the sets, props, and costumes. Their vision for the world of Middle East really helped shape the movie in a very subtle, but profound way. For instance, they used very consistent motifs for all of the sets and props associated with the different cultures of Middle Earth. Some of it was based upon Tolkien's own writings and some of it was based upon their interpretation of the books. The level of care and detail that went into the design process was really amazing - especially for props that had very limited screen time.

      If you want more details, I advise you to watch the "making of" DVD's in the Extended Edition of FOTR. If you are a fan of the atmosphere, like you say, you might gain a new appreciation of the movie.

      --

      ------

      www.moneybythenumbers.com

    2. Re:Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      King's 'The Shining' was a very popular book when Kubrick made the movie. And the fans did scream bloody murder after Kubrick massacred it. They were wrong. Kubrick's version was one of the greatest horror movies ever made.

      Jackson has pleased the Tolkien fans. However, 'Middle Earth experts' do an atmosphere make. I've seen the spirit of Tolkien in surrealist science fiction movies and in history textbooks. It goes so far because his work had real elements of greatness. I don't see that spirit in most fantasy novels or D&D games even if they do have elves and trolls. I don't see it in Jackson's movies no matter how correctly he got the pronunciation of elvish names or the color of Ent-bark.

      Frankly, I don't see Jackson taking any risks with the material. His movies are popular. But they aren't great. The original Star Wars was popular. The first, and maybe even the second Star Wars movie, were great. They changed the way people think. Their ideas and motifs penetrated the national psyche. That didn't happen with Titanic, even though that was just as popular. And we don't and won't see that with Jackson's movies.

      In fact, the movies are considerably less than great. I can't find any particular good about the movies beyond their fantasy setting. And that doesn't impress me so much--I can slap a costume on a chair.

      And, no, I'm not about to watch the 'making of' movie. A work stands on its own.

      ----As an aside, what's up with moderators misusing the flamebait rating? Here is sllort's moderation guideline on flamebait:

      Flamebait: It is noteworthy to point out that the Jargon File entry for Flamebait reads 'See also: troll'. Flamebait is actually more specific than Troll, as it is a moderation label for troll posts which are designed to start an angry discussion or 'flamewar'. Because flamewars are universally stupid, Flamebait and Troll both meet the general requirement of attempting to humiliate anyone who replies. Flamebait is even harder to use than Troll, and requires not only the psychic ability to read the intent of the original poster, but also the ability to determine that the author was attempting to provoke a flamewar. This is a double-diamond super-expert moderation label. If you can use it correctly, you're probably either psychic or God. Keyword: correctly.

  8. No LOTR Logo/Icon? by halo8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why oh Why Dear Slashdot Editors dose Lord of the Rings not have a Logo? Starwars has a Logo.. the Ipod has a Logo.. why dosent LOTR?

    Think about it.. all the Posts that are going to be made over the next +2 Years for LOTR.. Movie Reiviews, Spoilers, Trailers, DVD's, DVD Reviews, Special Ed. DVD's, Cast Interviews, Award Shows, ect.. ect... ect..

    LOTR DESERVES its own Logo/Icon

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48383&cid=49 16 794
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49299&cid =4983 792
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49969&cid =5033 027
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53467&cid =5280 387
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=55587&cid =5416 129

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    1. Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? by bwags · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I second the motion... all in favor...

    2. Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? by Jondor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      aye!
      (actualy I was somewhat supprised there wasn't one already..;)

      --
      Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
  9. hmm, no one else seems to have picked up on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hannah, 16, Sutton I noticed that loads of the actors on Lord of the Rings had to have prosthetics. Are you particularly glad you didn't have to go through that? Andy Serkis: Well funnily enough in the third film - I'll let you into a bit of a secret - I did have to go through that but I'm not going to say anymore.

    So....... erm..... my guess would be that he means he gets a cheeky cameo as a normal "human" actor. Playing an elf or dwarf or something in the corner of one scene.

    Any other interpretations of this bit?

  10. Shrek by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Today in Cinecanal they show "Shrek" (here in spanish).

    As the movie was translated (not subtitled), the part at the start where they put the names of Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy and John Lithgow, that did the "voices" was cut. Now, if the character's expression was taken from their acting while they did the voices, I think that this was unfair with those actors, in the same sense that they are doing with Serkis with Gollum, their acting was more than only put the voices.