Andy "Gollum" Serkis Speaks

Bad picture at the begining by RalphBNumbers · 2003-03-23 08:08 · Score: 3, Funny

It seems ironic to me that they felt the need to do such a horrible job of compositing the actor over his beautifully rendered counterpart.

Come on people, you don't need this kind of photo-trickery, and when you do it that badly, it really takes away more than it adds. If you're not going to spend the resources to do it right, just don't do it.

--
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge

his "roll", eh? by gasgesgos · 2003-03-23 08:09 · Score: 4, Funny

What kind of roll did he have as gollum? does the character of gollum even like rolls? and what about smeagol?

I would think smeagol is more of a donut man... errr... little slinky thing...

Re:his "roll", eh? by JudgeFurious · 2003-03-23 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny

"Smeagol hates rolls, nasty tricksy rolls with sesame seeds give Smeagol indigestion.....What's donuts?"

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:his "roll", eh? by dreamchaser · 2003-03-23 09:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, his first roll was an 18, as he landed on top of Frodo and Sam doing 1D4+1 damage to each of them. Unfortunately, he was hit in return with a Natural 20 and got himself captured...
Re:his "roll", eh? by Nathdot · 2003-03-23 12:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Ahh, actually I believe in the original screenplay it was indeed a roll. It was changed because Peter Jackson thought he wasn't being faithful enough to Tolkien's book.

SNIPPET FROM ORIGINAL SCRIPT:

ELROND
We must return the roll to the bakeries of
Morrrrdorr. It is to be cast into the
firey oven of the Mount Doom "Buns N' Loaves"
where it was first baked!
Re:his "roll", eh? by peter · 2003-03-23 19:40 · Score: 1

I _knew_ it was a Freudian typo influenced by years of playing AD&D.

--
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
Re:his "roll", eh? by Phayte · 2003-03-24 04:30 · Score: 1

He didn't have a roll. He played a role.

Turns out that "roll" means to move forward along a surface on an axis or a wad of cooked dough (and about 20 other things). A "role" is a character played by an actor.

Thank you, drive through.

heh...roll by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 08:09 · 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

Re:heh...roll by Pike65 · 2003-03-23 08:31 · 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
Re:heh...roll by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 08:38 · Score: 2

From what I understand watching the DVD extras and all the stuff on Lotr.net, I think they just used a video overlay technique and actually put the body of Gollum right over Andy. They didn't actually erase him, they just sort of put Gollum right overtop of him. At least, that's how I understand it. That just shows you how much of his action and movements made Gollum.

Yeah, if you read the article, Serkis talks a lot about some of the stuff he did..he thought he was going to originally be a voice actor too, but in the end the entire character of Gollum *is* Andy...just with some digital skin.

As far as the DVD commentary, I'm not sure...it would make sense that they shot it with him once...just to get all the angles right so it looks like it is from his perspective, but I wouldn't think they'd edit him out, that sounds sort of ridiculous. Any film experts have an opinion?

--
The anti-salmon
Re:heh...roll by silverhalide · 2003-03-23 09:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I can't remember where I read it, but they did the composting by doing all the gollum shots with the actors, then doing the shots without the actors with the exact same camera movements, then hours of painstaking composting where Gollum and the actors actually interacted with each other.
Re:heh...roll by digital-hell-native · 2003-03-23 11:31 · Score: 1

They are just kidding. Actually Ian Holm never was (at least never filmed) at the "real" Hobbiton set.
Re:heh...roll by Cruci_NZ · 2003-03-23 11:42 · Score: 1

Gollum scenes were filmed 3 times. Once with Andy wearing his Gollum PJs, again with no Andy, and then lastly in the motion capture studio with Andy acting solo.

The shots of Andy acting with the other actors were used as references. The majority of the shots you see are the ones that he acted in, and was then erased from. The digital Gollum was then added in his place. Gollum couldn't just be pasted in over the top, because he is much skinnier than Andy.
Re:heh...roll by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 11:46 · Score: 1, Funny

Wow, they were doing composting? That's definitely a step in the right direction; most movie sets are just left behind as garbage, and I'm glad to see Hollywood's concerned with the environment for once.
Re:heh...roll by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-23 12:35 · Score: 1

They spend 2 years per scene doing it.. that's how.
Re:heh...roll by jo_ham · 2003-03-23 12:40 · Score: 2, Informative

They'd shoot background plates with no actors, the same shots with the actors including Andy dressed in a tight fitting all over suit in one colour, then again on the motion capture stage.

Using a combination of the background plates, matte shots and the motion capture they can key out the real Andy and put Gollum in his place.

It takes a long time to do though, and rendering those frames is no picnic.

A "roll"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 08:09 · Score: 1, Funny

He has a "roll" as Gollum? From what cool bakery did he get that roll?

In his spare time.. by Gortbusters.org · 2003-03-23 08:10 · 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.

Re:In his spare time.. by donnz · 2003-03-23 08:39 · 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
Re:In his spare time.. by Paradigm+Lost · 2003-03-23 11:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Your Museum link is broken. It should be here. Very cool exhibition, but it finishes at the end of the month. Apparently, some of the items will then be used for RotK reshoots, and then the exhibition will tour overseas for a couple of years.

Funny thing is that it costs as much to see the exhibition as the movie.

--
-Dead Lesbian Witches! Think about it!
Re:In his spare time.. by donnz · 2003-03-23 11:56 · Score: 1

bugger!

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Re:In his spare time.. by Grishnakh · 2003-03-23 13:28 · Score: 1

I first read about this at least 6 years ago in a magazine, calling it a "brain drain" from America. They mentioned many factors causing upper middle-class Americans wanting to move there, such as the far superior education system, lack of crime, etc. Personally, I'd like to move there too. The US doesn't seem to be getting any better, and as an electrical engineer I'd like to find a country where I can enjoy a decent, stable career unlike what we have here.
Re:In his spare time.. by rodgerd · 2003-03-23 13:32 · Score: 1

You know, part of the value of New Zealand is that it isn't overflowing with people. Vast flows of people in would ruin exactly what they're coming to see (cf Bali, Hawaii).
Re:In his spare time.. by Kiwiscientist · 2003-03-23 15:43 · Score: 1

Coming to New Zealand isn't going to solve that problem for you. Permanent jobs are about as stable as contracting and you'd be horrified at the differences in pay compared to what you can earn in the States. New Zealand is (I'm told - don't have any myself) a nice place to bring up kids, but not great to develop careers. As a professional scientist, I'm hoping to win the Green Card lottery so I can do in the USA exactly what you want to do here.
Re:In his spare time.. by monkeydo · 2003-03-24 09:09 · Score: 1

Holy crap. You'd think you could at least check the spelling of your sig. I can forgive all the spelling errors in your unintelligble post, but if you are going to hurl insults at out President at least have the decency to proofread. Moron.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:In his spare time.. by donnz · 2003-03-24 09:52 · Score: 1

Done, thanks. AS for hurling insults and "proofreading"...never mind, just recheck your own post (or was that an attempt at subtle humour, if so, it's funny, laugh :-)).

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk

trollbait away! by Flak · 2003-03-23 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Come on. These questions are by 10 to 15 year olds! The questions read just like an episode of askslashdot.

Re:trollbait away! by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-03-23 08:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, these kiddies weren't exactly hard-hitting were they? I have a quarrel with Oliver, 14 who asked, "Did you feel intimidated working with such a high profile cast?" Pardon me, but the cast of LOTR was high profile? I didn't think they had any real big names in there. Sure, Ian McKellen was quite well respected but that's different than high profile. He certainly doesn't draw the kind of attention that $CURRENT_HOLLYWOOD_STAR does or the attention that $FORMER_HOLLYWOOD_STAR and Sylvester Stallone did. Or is Oliver referring to the behavior of the cast while out and about in public? Ah, the mind of a 14 year old...a very strange place to be indeed.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:trollbait away! by gmuslera · 2003-03-23 09:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Ian McKellen was the bad guy in X-Men, so is a bit actual. Hugo Weaving was an agent in Matrix, also very actual.Christopher Lee is almost a legend, maybe it not appear a lot on modern movies (?) but it is on most of the clasical horror movies. And Elijah Wood has acted in a lot of actual movies, including Deep Impact. And not forget Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler.
I think that a 14 years old boy would know most of this actors, saw previos movies with them in leading roles, but probably they hear about Andy Serkis (and about most of the rest of the cast not named here) just on this movie.
Re:trollbait away! by gmuslera · 2003-03-23 09:19 · Score: 1

Uh, I forget this from the previos answer. What you think that will recognize a 14 years old guy? this ones as the good guys or those as the entire cast?
Re:trollbait away! by ictatha · 2003-03-23 11:29 · Score: 1

Christopher Lee is almost a legend, maybe it not appear a lot on modern movies (?)

To expand on Christopher Lee a bit... Here's one role most of us have seen him in (SW:EPII):
http://us.imdb.com/Credits?0121765

Here's his bio page on IMDB:
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Lee,%20Christopher

That page lists 258 films he's been in dating back to 1948. So I agree, Christopher Lee qualifies as a movie legend in my book.

--
"... the advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy" - Janov Pelorat
Re:trollbait away! by mabinogi · 2003-03-23 11:41 · Score: 1

Not even seen, if at all possible ;)

--
Advanced users are users too!
Re:trollbait away! by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-03-23 15:06 · Score: 1

Obviously you didn't understand what I was saying. I wasn't saying they were unknowns that had walked in off the street. The point I was making was that the actors used weren't part of the Hollywood elite who can open a July 4th movie and command top dollar. The kid that asked the question was asking it like the other actors would cause a major stir - which I doubt. But you wanted to post some links and ignore what I actually said, so go right ahead - if that's what you need to do with your life.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:trollbait away! by DohDamit · 2003-03-23 15:27 · Score: 1

I thought they were kidding when they said this place was populated with people half my age. That explains about oooooh 100% of the moderations.

I'm only flamebaiting if you think I am. ;^)

Roleing about laughing by Telex4 · 2003-03-23 08:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Great! Golum's part was really funny - in fact it had me rofl (roleing on the floor laughing)!

I Found it interesting by mesach · 2003-03-23 08:11 · 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.

Please take pity by frankthechicken · 2003-03-23 08:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah it's quite surprising, I didn't think I'd get recognised as much as I do but because the animators designed the facial structure of how Gollum actually looks on screen to be very close to mine

I feel truly sorry for the poor guy.

Re:Please take pity by EverDense · 2003-03-23 09:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, but with eyes that size I'm sure he'd
go down a treat with the Anime crowd.

--
http://jesus.everdense.com/
Re:Please take pity by Sgs-Cruz · 2003-03-23 09:50 · Score: 1

Gollum, or Serkis?

--
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

Expected.. by Metallic+Matty · 2003-03-23 08:13 · Score: 2, Funny

As expected, throughout the interview he made several references to what he called "his precious" in a rather creepy, serpentine voice.

Re:Expected.. by Klugheitsucher · 2003-03-23 11:39 · Score: 1

Only then to explain that he was refering to his patent on cookies which had been recently been stolen. He then stated that he would return to his cave alone to discuss other possibilities.

lol! by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

These questions are hilarious! What is this? A bunch of kids asking questions? Oh...

This one was probably my favorite:

Who do you think would win in a fight between Gollum and Dobby?

Andy Serkis: I think Gollum probably would, I think Dobby would probably knock himself out.

So true.

--
The anti-salmon

Re:lol! by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 08:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah right! The average slashdotter would have asked a much better question: "Who would win in a fight between Gollum and Wil Wheaton?" Or "Did they use a beowulf cluster to render your body?" etc. Trust me, no self-respecting slashdotter would have asked about Nobby.

--
The anti-salmon
Re:lol! by havokk · 2003-03-23 08:36 · Score: 1

Boo hoo.

Guess who won the GoogleFight?

'Gollum (225 000 results)
versus
Doby (494 000 results)...

The winner is: Doby'

Unjust. ;I

--
People are DNA's way to make more DNA.
Re:lol! by Trebuchet · 2003-03-23 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

You spelled "Dobby" wrong. The name has 2 Bs.

If you run the googlefight with Dobby spelled right, guess who wins?

That's right, Gollum!!

--

Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw,
And he never has the same problem twice.
Re:lol! by powerlinekid · 2003-03-23 09:01 · Score: 1

Actually yes they are a bunch of kids. If you look at the name of the poster, the number right after that is their age. In most cases it was 13. The amazing thing is that some of the questions were more sophisticated then questions we ask here on slashdot. (remember the Shatner interview?)

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:lol! by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 09:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Sorry, I'll be sure to indicate my sarcasm with blinking lights next time.

--
The anti-salmon
Re:lol! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-03-23 09:14 · Score: 1

Yes, indeedy. The GoogleFight was, indeed, won by Hall of Fame center-fielder Larry Doby.

Thanks for pointing this out.

--

I write in my journal
Re:lol! by powerlinekid · 2003-03-23 09:20 · Score: 1

My bad, I missed the oh...

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:lol! by Drakonian · 2003-03-23 09:34 · Score: 1

Actually I thought those were very good questions. Better than the crap you get from Slashdot interviews. (What do you think of xxxx? (where xxxx has nothing to do with why we are interviewing you))
The question about intruding on the relationship between Frodo and Sam was very good.

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:lol! by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 09:42 · Score: 1

not a problem. However, to show how sorry you really are, you should go to fjordboy.com and vote for your favorite news anchor.

--
The anti-salmon
Re:lol! by powerlinekid · 2003-03-23 10:10 · Score: 1

Haha, I would but I don't watch TV. And I don't like to vote when I feel uninformed :).

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:lol! by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 10:26 · Score: 1

That's fine, I have a bit of an explanation for the survey available on the site. Basically, it's just a popularity survey, and everyone knows that all popularity surveys are based only on looks. So, I linked to an image of each news anchor/reporter.

--
The anti-salmon
Re:lol! by powerlinekid · 2003-03-23 12:07 · Score: 1

Alright fine, I voted for John Stewart. I liked his coverage of 9/11.

--

can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:lol! by mbourgon · 2003-03-24 02:24 · Score: 1

I found the quality of the questions to at least be on par with that of the average Ask Slashdot.

--
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples

in case of /.ing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

question: do you like fish?

Yes, usually quite raw.

question: do you hate P. Jackson for having you roll around in that cold stream for hours?

Weees will hasss our revenge.

question: what is the worst thing about being a computer generated actor?

Trying to convince people that you have to stop for a real pee and that a virtual pee doesn't cut the mustard.

question: have you read the book?

Yes, yes, I've read it about 50 times and watched the movie.

question: did you run away and join the circus?

You horrible little man take that *blam* *yeeeow*

Re:in case of /.ing by cybercuzco · 2003-03-23 12:36 · Score: 1

Actual Question from the interview:

Q:If you could keep any prop from the movie, what would you keep?

A:I think I would keep the precious.

--

The only important tidbit... by Anthony+Boyd · 2003-03-23 08:19 · 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 &

Re:The only important tidbit... by FurryFeet · 2003-03-23 10:58 · Score: 1

Ian McKellen probably would, as he is cited as the one plating the idea in Peter Jackson's head.
Ian Holm, alas, will probably be too old to play a young Bilbo, prostetics and computer help nonwhitstanding. They'd probably get a younger actor who looks like a young Holm, which probably would not be too bad (after the LOTR movies, Jackson's cating people have my full trust).
Re:The only important tidbit... by Mr.+No+Skills · 2003-03-24 10:41 · Score: 1

that it was going to be another movie

Yes, LOTR:The Rise of Mordor. At the end of the third movie we watch Gollum dropped into a volcano, and we think he was destroyed forever. Well, it turns out that there is another Gollum sent back from the future after the point where this movie ends. He picks up the chase to kill Frodo, thinking this will change the future from this point on so that evil wins.

Peter Jackson probably thinks he can continue this indefinately, until the actor who plays Gollum ages to the point where he is unbelievable in the role (and he is depanding outrageous amounts of money for each movie, even as the interest in the series wanes). They can keep going on by placing a fake, computer generated character in the movie in place of a real person!

--
Sleep is for the Weak

Battle of the Comic-Relief Chars by YokuYakuYoukai · 2003-03-23 08:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Gollum could definatly take Jar Jar in a fight. I don't think it would even be close.

--

Won't you be my my neighbor?

Re:Serkis also has split personality... by giminy · 2003-03-23 08:26 · Score: 1

Yes. And he's bumbling like an idiot. Perhaps you should highlight the "it's not weird" and "it's quite weird really" parts.

It kinda makes you wonder...

--
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,

Just 9 hours?? by mlush · 2003-03-23 08:26 · Score: 1

Can't wait so spend a whole 9 hours watching for the full DVD release of LOTR!

I make that more like 19.5 (9 hours for the theatrical release, then 10.5 for the extended edition....)

Re:Just 9 hours?? by glitch! · 2003-03-23 09:32 · Score: 1

Can't wait so spend a whole 9 hours watching for the full DVD release of LOTR!

I make that more like 19.5 (9 hours for the theatrical release, then 10.5 for the extended edition....)

It was nice of him to mention that there will be an "extended" (in other words, not cut as severely) version of Return of the King.

Quote:
"...it'll be, four years all in all, over fours years, until we've done the final extended DVD on the Return of the King, which will be about this time next year..."

So remember to wait for the extended DVD to come out, and no whining that they are "forcing" us to buy both versions!

--
A dingo ate my sig...
Re:Just 9 hours?? by mlush · 2003-03-23 10:27 · Score: 1

So remember to wait for the extended DVD to come out, and no whining that they are "forcing" us to buy both versions!
Now the theatrical release or FOTR is being remandered at about 10 pounds (in HMV) I'm very tempted to buy it!
Re:Just 9 hours?? by Phroggy · 2003-03-23 11:23 · Score: 1

I make that more like 19.5 (9 hours for the theatrical release, then 10.5 for the extended edition....)

That's just for the films. Don't forget the special features on the DVDs!

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-03-23 08:31 · Score: 5, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Spoiler Alert! by po8 · 2003-03-23 08:31 · 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?]

Re:Spoiler Alert! by Grishnakh · 2003-03-23 13:40 · Score: 1

Actually, they've already announced a major change in ROTK with the addition of a new character:

http://bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html

Re:WTF is: by muzthe42nd · 2003-03-23 08:35 · Score: 1

Digital Versatile Disk Lord Of The Rings British Broadcasting Corporation. Happy now?

--
Pfft - Sorry, what?

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by HughJampton · 2003-03-23 08:39 · Score: 1

But if you watch LOTR, a lot of Gollum's expression is in the movement. Compare this to Darth Vader, who generally just stood around.

--
In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters imagine YOU!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-03-23 08:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Serkis also has split personality... by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 08:42 · Score: 1

Remember, we're also reading a transcript of his spoken answers to the questions. Just using different emphasis(es) on different words, it can change the entire sound and meaning of the sentence. When you listen to him, he might be stressing different parts of the sentence and he might sound like he's changing his mind or something. Bumbling, maybe...but I wouldn't say "Like an idiot."

--
The anti-salmon

Has he even read the books? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some of his answers seem a bit far out, especially the one concerning what Smeagol would do with the ring if he finally got it:

Elizabeth, 6, Madison USA
What do you think Gollum would do if he actually got the Ring back?

Andy Serkis: That's a good question. I think Gollum would probably want to try and turn back time so he could go back to being Smeagol before he killed his cousin for the Ring.

Which, of course, is not at all what LotR tells us (Gollum even says outwardly that that he'd pay everyone back). That said, it seems somewhat odd that the actors haven't read the book, or if they have they haven't read it very closely.

Re:Has he even read the books? by Phroggy · 2003-03-23 11:29 · Score: 1

That seemed like a very strange answer to me too, but he did say that he read all the books. He particularly based the movements of his character on Tolkein's descriptions.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Has he even read the books? by mariox19 · 2003-03-23 11:33 · Score: 1

It's plain in the interview that he has read the book closely -- multiple times!

I thought the answer was a little weird myself. It may have to do, however, with his characterization of Gollum. Serkis seems careful to make sure that the pathetic comes through in his portrayal, in addition to the malice.

Gollum is a warped creature; and maybe Serkis believes, in creating the character for screen, that somewhere, deep down, Gollum knows knows what the ring has cost him and regrets it.

--
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Re:Has he even read the books? by dillon_rinker · 2003-03-23 14:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're forgetting that the characterization of Gollum/Smeagol in the movie differs drastically from that of Gollum in the books. I doubt that Elizabeth, aged 6, has read the books. I think it's safe to say that Serkis is answering based on Jackson's vision of the character in the movies, not Tolkien's vision of the character in the books.
Re:Has he even read the books? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2003-03-23 14:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

That seemed like a very strange answer to me too [...]
Not when you consider he was answering to a 6 year old girl.
Re:Has he even read the books? by GuruJ · 2003-03-23 15:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think even more than that, Serkis doesn't want to tell little 6-year old Elizabeth that Gollum would go and slit everyone's throat...

--
-- Askari: Give JavaScript the bird.
Re:Has he even read the books? by Mr.Phil · 2003-03-24 03:26 · Score: 1

"Gollum is a warped creature; and maybe Serkis believes, in creating the character for screen, that somewhere, deep down, Gollum knows knows what the ring has cost him and regrets it."

It is said plainly many times that Gollum both loves and hates the ring, both in the books and the movie adaptation. Perhaps Serkis is playing to that more to the surface to give the character a little more depth.

I always wondered if Gollum was playing the hobbits for a chance to take the ring, or if he was actually trying to help Frodo and thought he was betrayed by Frodo. Serkis and Jackson seem to think the latter, I always thought the former.
Re:Has he even read the books? by dillon_rinker · 2003-03-24 13:26 · Score: 1

Laughing! Out! Loud!

I always preferred Brother Theodore's voice myself by Faust7 · 2003-03-23 08:56 · 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.

Enough with the 'roll' jokes by SoftwareTechie · 2003-03-23 09:05 · Score: 5, Funny

They're getting stale.

--

--
Political Correctness is doubleplusungood.

Re:Enough with the 'roll' jokes by fjordboy · 2003-03-23 09:51 · Score: 1

at the risk of losing karma over this...that is probably the funniest thing I've seen all day. If I had moderator points (and hadn't already posted like 10 times for this story), I'd totally mod you up.

What a pun..oh man.

--
The anti-salmon

Silly wife by bucketoftruth · 2003-03-23 09:10 · Score: 1

My wife thought it was a real person. Go figure.

Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · 2003-03-23 09:14 · 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.

Re:Hmm by humblecoder · 2003-03-23 10:08 · 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
Re:Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · 2003-03-23 10:55 · 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.
Re:Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · 2003-03-23 11:02 · Score: 1

You managed to completely miss what I said. I feel that Jackson spent too much time trying to replicate the books on screen and did come up with something excruciatingly tedious.

Jackson did try to make this particular toaster wash dishes, as you put it. He failed for preciously that reason. It's not an adaptation that he has created, it's a replication.
Re:Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · 2003-03-23 13:18 · Score: 1

Hence my original post about said fans.
Re:Hmm by Henry+V+.009 · 2003-03-23 16:10 · Score: 1

Heh.
Re:Hmm by CommieLib · 2003-03-23 17:21 · Score: 1

Their vision for the world of Middle East really helped shape the movie

Vision of Middle Earth, one would think. I'm one to talk, though; I identified a Whopper as coming from McDonalds a few days ago on Slashdot.

--
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Re:Hmm by Ozymandias_KoK · 2003-03-23 19:53 · Score: 1

Hey, you're one to talk, didn't you a few days ago say Whoppers wer...oh. Sorry.

In other news... by SWroclawski · 2003-03-23 09:14 · Score: 2, Funny

In other news, David Sedaris will be playing Gollum in the next movie...

Not only will he keep the ring, but he'll interspese that with witty commentary and stories about his family, being a Christmas Elf and Santa Claus around the world.

- Serge Wroclawski
(wondering if anyone will get it)

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by TheCrimsonUnbeliever · 2003-03-23 09:16 · Score: 4, Informative

He acted and the animation followed him - As did his facial expressions - Watch a 'making of' video and you will get it He did do a lot of work and special work at that

No LOTR Logo/Icon? by halo8 · 2003-03-23 09:20 · 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

Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? by bwags · 2003-03-23 10:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

I second the motion... all in favor...
Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? by Jondor · 2003-03-23 10:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
Re:No LOTR Logo/Icon? by Drakkar · 2003-03-23 18:01 · Score: 1

I second that too!

Love how he avoids spoilers. by Sebbo · 2003-03-23 09:39 · Score: 4, Funny

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 but obviously Gollum's fate is very much bound up with that of Frodo and Sam and the Ring of course. And so you get to see them continue on their journey and it reaches an enormous climax in Mordor.

Psst, kid! I know where you can get top-secret information about what happens in Return of the King--it's called a library!

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by Cranx · 2003-03-23 09:49 · Score: 1

I'm sorry...it might become an acting achievement one day, but so much animation is rendered over his face, I just don't buy that Serkis had much to do with those expressions except as something to lay under the renderings. Look at Gollum's facial movements...they're utterly, typically gummy like virtually all CG animations are right now. If they were copying Serkis so closely, why are his movements more gummy and phony than the old Disney human renderings?

Perhaps he did a fantastic acting job, but the CG renderings were botched. But you know what? That means that, whatever Serkis' achievements were, while he performed them in front of a camera, those achievements never made it to the big screen.

Sorry guys, I just don't buy the propaganda. A "making of" video just serves as propaganda here. But I do realize how much it means to you techsheep to have Serkis' get recognized by the acting community for his work, and I'm sorry if it irks you that "I don't see it."

Minor quibble by bonch · 2003-03-23 09:52 · Score: 1

The books came out way earlier than the 60s. They only really caught on in that decade.

Heck, the stories of the Silmarillion were started way back when Tolkien was in the trenches of WW1...

More like ten and a half? by oh · 2003-03-23 10:00 · Score: 1

Can't wait so spend a whole 9 hours watching for the full DVD release of LOTR!"

Only 9 hours? Come on, if you can't watch all 10 1/2 hours of all three extended editions back to back youâ(TM)re not serious! Except of course for the 5 DVD changes.

--
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by TheCrimsonUnbeliever · 2003-03-23 10:05 · Score: 1

Techsheep? - What makes you so special? [He has done something no other actor has done before - Not on this scale - I think he deserves note for it]

Psst by bonch · 2003-03-23 10:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

He's talking character-wise. Obviously, they've played a bit with Gollum's psychosis compared to the books. I imagine he doesn't want to reveal how Gollum's mindset has been fleshedout in the final film, and how he acted it as a result.

Re:Psst by dillon_rinker · 2003-03-23 14:50 · Score: 1

Precisely. In the books...
[SPOILER ALERT!]
[SPOILER ALERT!]
[SPOILER ALERT!]
[SPOILER ALERT!]
[SPOILER ALERT!] ...it seems more like Gollum accidentally falls to his death. After seeing LOTR II, I wonder if Gollum's death will be a bit more willful. Perhaps Gollum will steal the ring and Smeagol will leap into the flames of Mount Doom.
Re:Psst by bonch · 2003-03-24 18:31 · Score: 1

I actually hope it plays the opposite way--Gollum gets the ring, Smeagol hesitates and desperately tries to reject, but in the struggle, they stumble off the edge. To me, it would seem a more fitting, tragic ending to the character rather than the martyrdom you suggest. Plus, I don't think even Smeagol could resist the power of the ring in his possession and willfully destroy it like that (if Peter Jackson decides to stay accurate to the overwhelming and corrupting powers of the ring he's been displaying in the first two films).

Don't call him Gollum! by TheSHAD0W · 2003-03-23 10:15 · Score: 1

His real name is Smeagol. Don't say the G word, or he'll turn into a homicidal lunatic and start stealing our rings!

Re:Don't call him Gollum! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 11:26 · Score: 1, Funny

"Humperdinck! Humperdinck! Humperdinck! Humperdinck! ..."

Well, by Cygnus17 · 2003-03-23 10:20 · Score: 1

you have to admit, that really isn't saying much.

A jar* could take Jar Jar in a fight.

I haven't seen LotR:T2Ts yet (yes, I live in a cave) but was Gollum really very much of a comic-relief character? All the intelligent observations I've heard about the movie say that he is the epitome of a tragic character. *shrug*

*peanut butter jar, pickle jar, olive jar, cookie jar, whatever, it don't matter.

Re:Well, by Destoo · 2003-03-24 02:26 · Score: 1

Actually, the comical relief is Gimli.
Gollum is more alive and serious than most of the characters. If anything, it's he "drama" tool of the movie.

--
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC

Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 10:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Josh, 13, Malden
Is it true that you actually had to dive into the freezing cold water in the scene by the waterfall yourself and if so what was that like?

Andy Serkis: Yeah it's absolutely true, they spent the whole morning before we actually shot that scene - the whole mountain was under cover of snow and the crew had to defrost this entire area using high pressure hoses and wind machines and all sorts of things and then - but the water was still sub-zero - and so when I went into the water it was absolutely freezing, I could hardly move, my whole body froze up and we had to repeat the scene a few times. But it is true we did do that.

Wouldn't it hurt diving into ice? :-/

Re:Ouch by jo_ham · 2003-03-23 12:50 · Score: 1

Depends if there was any salt (or other dissolved things) in it. Salt water freezes a few degrees below zero.
Re:Ouch by rifter · 2003-03-24 08:06 · Score: 1

Others have pointed out the possibility of supercooled water; I would point out that whereas 0 centigrade is freezing, 0 fahrenheit is not, though it would seem odd for an englishman in a movie from new zealand would be thinking in Imperial units ;).

hmm, no one else seems to have picked up on this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 11:08 · 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?

Re:Serkis also has split personality... by Phroggy · 2003-03-23 11:37 · Score: 1

Remember, we're also reading a transcript of his spoken answers to the questions.

Um, we are? I listened to the RealAudio version of the interview. And yeah, it sounded like he changed his mind in mid-answer.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by Phroggy · 2003-03-23 11:39 · Score: 1

But if you watch LOTR, a lot of Gollum's expression is in the movement. Compare this to Darth Vader, who generally just stood around.

Also, the actor who generally just stood around had no idea that his voice was going to be dubbed, and as I recall was rather upset when he saw the final version of the film and discovered that his own voice had been replaced by that of James Earl Jones.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:Serkis also has split personality... by Phroggy · 2003-03-23 11:41 · Score: 1

Yes. And he's bumbling like an idiot. Perhaps you should highlight the "it's not weird" and "it's quite weird really" parts.

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

The Best One by weston · 2003-03-23 11:43 · Score: 1

was this:

Intafah, 14, London
If you could get any one thing from the set of Lord of the Rings what would you take home to keep?

Andy Serkis: I think it would have to be the precious.

--
Tweet, tweet.

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by seekohler · 2003-03-23 12:16 · Score: 1

Wow. I made that MPG clip over a month ago. Cool to see it's making the rounds.

Re:hmm, no one else seems to have picked up on thi by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-23 12:47 · Score: 1, Informative

I'll bet you $5 that he plays Smeogal, a hobbit-like creature before his later transformation into the CGI Gollum.

Flashback time.

Re:its ROLE you stupid fucking morons by jo_ham · 2003-03-23 12:54 · Score: 1

And it's "it's" if you're being pedantic.

it's = it is
its = belonging to it (being one of the only times that the possession apostrophe is not used)

Shrek by gmuslera · 2003-03-23 13:00 · 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.

I think Chris Kattan plays a better gollum by cylcyl · 2003-03-23 13:10 · Score: 2, Funny

And would save Peter Jackson Millions in special effects :)

9 hours? by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2003-03-23 13:12 · Score: 1

The final extended version DVD (Christmas 2004, anyone?) will probably be at least 12 hours, not including 'making of' and commentary footage.

--
MORTAR COMBAT!

A Scene from the Academy Debate Over Andy Serkis by Nova+Express · 2003-03-23 13:14 · Score: 3, Funny

S: I think Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar nomination for playing Gollum in The Two Towers.

G: No!! We hates him, hates him!

S: What are you talking about? He did a wonderful job!

G: No! He ruined the precious with all his nasty scampering about!

S: Oh come on! His was far and away one of the most interesting performances in the movie.

G: No! Not he, it. Yessss, it, horrible machine with all its nasty little bits running like ants! We hates the terrible computer eye, hates it! HATES IT! No, we keeps the precious little statue...

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:its ROLE you stupid fucking morons by KITT_KATT!* · 2003-03-23 13:51 · Score: 1

> (being one of the only times that the possession apostrophe is not used)

No, it's not an unusual case, it's entirely logical. You don't use an apostrophe in other possessive pronouns such as his, her and their, so why would you in its?

Serkis Maximus! by Jelloshot · 2003-03-23 16:01 · Score: 1

I recently returned from Las Vegas where Mr. Serkis spoke to the GAMA convention. It was an impressive appearance and very enjoyable. Besides giving an account of what it takes to make great films like Fellowship and Two Towers, he left a real impression about being truely passionate his job. I'm won't be able to see the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the years to come without thinking about the efforts and talent of not only Serkis but the rest of the crew in front of the camera or behind it.

Gollum's Anti War Message by harrypower · 2003-03-23 16:13 · Score: 1

OT - as Gollum arrived at the Oscars he carried a sign proclaiming "No War For Oil". http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-24ma r2003-56.htm

Re:Gollum's Anti War Message by Jens_UK · 2003-03-24 06:55 · Score: 1

Looks like that link has roled off - this one should work.

--
Give life

Think of Ross Perot after ten years on the Atkins by use_compress · 2003-03-23 17:14 · Score: 2, Funny

from Anthony Lane of The New Yorker
Gollum, who guides Frodo on his quest, is white-skinned and blue-veined, like a moldering cheese, and his shrunken frame is topped by a triangular head with protruding eyes. Think of Ross Perot after ten years on the Atkins diet, and you're almost there.
http://orlijah.net/archive/article108.html

Re:Andy Serkis wasn't gollum... by Squozen · 2003-03-23 21:26 · Score: 1

And the funniest thing is hearing David Prowse's original 'acting'. It's ball-tearingly funny. I'm amazed that he thought it would remain in the film.

think again... 9hrs... by w4rl5ck · 2003-03-23 21:39 · Score: 1

remember the extended versions... I think it will be aroud 11 hours pure F-U-N :D

Re:think again... 9hrs... by w4rl5ck · 2003-03-25 01:45 · Score: 1

it was not totally unwanted ;) anyway, this is one of the best movies ever made, so money should not be a problem... :D

Is it only me... by jotaeleemeese · 2003-03-23 22:33 · Score: 1

... or it seems like Nathalie Portman has been displaced by Gollum as the most talked about cinematic celebrity in /. ?

Disturbing.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

12 hours by Headius · 2003-03-24 01:34 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the full LOTR be over 12 hours on completion? The first two films are already close to or greater than 3 hours in the theater, and the DVD release of TFotR is well over 3 hours. A full DVD release should be much closer to 12 hours.

Hey Moderators! by Spunk · 2003-03-24 01:38 · Score: 1

Um, this isn't a troll. The spelling is quite relevant to the GoogleFight results.

CG Hair by PegQuin · 2003-03-24 02:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Does Gollum's hair look more real than Andy's, or is it just me?

--
PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion

Re:TROGDOR!!! by Destoo · 2003-03-24 02:55 · Score: 1

(Think Throgdor could have destroyed the ring?)

Burninating the elven folks..
Burninating the orcses.
TROG DOR comes in the niiiIIIIIIGHT!

GOOGLEFIGHT:
Trogdor vs. Smaug : Defeat. 7,840 vs. 329,000
Trogdor vs. Shelob : Defeat. 7,840 vs. 41,800
Trogdor vs. Shagrat: ***WIN***
7,840 vs. 5,970

--
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC

139 of 221 comments (clear)