Cool News
MR. BEAKS Sits Down With ANDY SERKIS!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
This is one of those things where both Quint and I find ourselves seething at the way timing and location work out. When New Line called and asked us if we wanted to talk to Andy Serkis, the man behind Gollum, while he is here in Los Angeles, we both said, “Sure!” I don’t like stepping on Quint’s toes since I always enjoy his interviews, but we all felt it would be important to get some face-to-face time with this actor, since that’s exactly what is missing when watching his work in LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS. Then reality came crashing down on me and I realized how impossible my schedule was. I was crushed, since I wanted to talk to him about not only LOTR, but his experty funny and caustic turn in last year’s 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE. Trying to not sound intensely jealous, I called up Mr. Beaks, who was busy downloading Tatu videos. I can’t describe the sounds I heard when he answered the phone, but he quickly composed himself and said he’d be glad to meet Serkis, and after New Line approved him, I gave him all the information about when and where.
By now, I hope you’ve found the WAV file on the front page, and that hearing Gollum and Smeagol argue about the merits of the site has got you in the mood for the excellent article Beaks just turned in...
So, I had this dream last night...
I’m at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Los Angeles, CA on February 11th for the announcing of the 75th Academy Award nominations. A phalanx of press is massed in the center of the room, looking on as Jodie Foster and Kevin Spacey tick off the list of the five Best Actors in a Supporting Role. The first three names are unveiled with little surprise or fanfare – near-perennial nominees Chris Cooper and Ed Harris, followed by the obligatory, what-if-this-is-it nod for Paul Newman – but as we’re down to the last two, I find myself growing a bit anxious. You see, since mid-December I’ve been strongly of the opinion that any Best Supporting Actor category excluding the brilliant, groundbreaking work of Andy Serkis as Gollum in THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS is criminally incomplete. But, as the group of five is rounded out with Dennis Quaid and Christopher Walken, I drop my head in deep disappointment, wondering aloud how they could fail to acknowledge this watershed moment in filmed performance.
Hearing my lament, a reporter turns to me with this typically misguided consolation: “WETA was nominated in all of the major technical awards.”
“Of course, they were,” I reply, “but what about the guy who gave the performance we’ve all been talking about?”
This is where the reporter really pisses me off, shooting back with this gem: “But Gollum is a computer generated character. Don’t tell me you were expecting Andy Serkis to be nominated for a mere vocal performance.”
The rest is hazy, but I do believe the dream ended before I went all Gimli on the fool.
* * * *
“When I started the press junket, nobody knew there was an actor involved. I was getting questions like, ‘Oh, so did you ever go down to New Zealand?’ I was, like, ‘Um, yeah, for four years.’”
It’s a beautiful, warm, late-January afternoon in Beverly Hills. I’m sitting across from Andy Serkis in his room at the Four Seasons, and, amazingly, I’m not dreaming. We’ve been chatting for a good fifteen minutes by now, covering topics like his youth in Ruislip, West London, his life-altering experience at Lancaster (“a real red-brick, Sixties university”) where he discovered his love of acting after landing a plum role in Berry Keefe’s GOTCHA, and the nearly two decades of work that have led up to this fortuitous moment in his life, where he should be receiving the warmest accolades of his career for what will end up being four solid years of an immersive, highly technical application of his craft as Gollum. But, amazingly, he’s still having to convince people he did much of anything at all.
Andy continues to relate the junket horror stories: “’So, you did actually do the voice? Didn’t’ they just do that on the computer?” Andy laughs a little, but it betrays a great many months of hard work convincing journalists of his actual involvement in a process which would’ve been impossible without him. “I’ve had to really go step-by-step. New Line’s been supportive of that; Peter’s been very supportive of that. But people still find the process hard to understand.”
This hasn’t been for a lack of effort on Andy’s part (or New Line’s, who have offered up an extremely illuminating feature on their LORD OF THE RINGS website). He’s been engaged in a full-court media press of interviews and appearances in Los Angeles over the last two weeks, pushing hard for something that should be a given: a genuine recognition of his work. Perhaps the greatest hurdle facing Andy in this respect is that he isn’t a familiar face, thereby blunting the impact of realizing how Gollum is, essentially, a grotesque distorting of the actor’s own physiognomy. The similarity is remarkable in person, and I asked Andy whether or not he’s seeing himself onscreen.
“Very much so. All of the actor choices build up to make… who Gollum really is. That obviously informed the performance, and became the heart and soul of what the animators then (used).” By imbuing the character with such human feeling – a feeling once present in Gollum before the ring tragically corrupted and transformed him – the film reaches a much discussed high point during the anguished monologue in which Smeagol triumphantly banishes Gollum from his psyche. “That scene in particular... well, Gollum’s face, the whole physiognomy, was redesigned in between FELLOWSHIP and TTT, so that it would be much closer to mine. Peter wanted it modeled much, much more on my expression. So Bay (animator Bay Raitt) spent about a year to a year-and-a-half redesigning Gollum based exactly on my facial muscles. They painted my face with dots and the dots were assigned to the dots on the Gollum puppet.” And while the resemblance to Andy is uncanny, he was struck by a different revelation. “When I first saw the Gollum puppet, I said to Bay, ‘This is incredible because Smeagol looks like my two-and-a-half year-old son, and Gollum looks like my dad’. He really, really caught the gene, y’know?”
Impressive as the conflicted inner-monologue is, his on-set interplay with Elijah Wood and Sean Astin was equally crucial. Andy raves about this experience. “That was the great thing, you know. Where Peter was really clever was in saying, ‘Okay, what I want is an actor on set to make all of the actor choices, to be in the moment and have that reciprocal energy with Elijah and Sean, so that the scenes are played for real. And, from there, use that as the core of the character.’” Combined with the later motion capture work, this gave the filmmakers an unprecedented amount of leeway, and though they ended up using mostly motion capture footage, Andy is adamant that his involvement earlier in the process was a tremendous aid to the character’s verisimilitude; thus, sparing his co-stars from having to draw reciprocal energy from the dreaded tennis ball on a stick (which, coincidentally, I hear is behind on its SAG dues).
It should come as little surprise that this whole four year investment in portraying Gollum has turned Andy into a true believer in the CG process (he even expressed an interest in using the motion capture technology on one of his own short films). “I’ve been really evangelizing about CG acting. For me, there’s no difference. It’s liberating because you can play any number of different characters that are not dependant on what your own physicality is. You’re an actor. You can embody any character. I mean... you could never find an actor who looks like (Gollum). And neither would it have worked as well. Originally I thought maybe I could’ve done this with prosthetics, but, actually, there’s a greater resonance in me being CG. It’s like watching really good puppetry, you know, where there’s a magical quality and a greater truth. You get a greater human truth from watching something abstract. So, that’s why I wanted to humanize him as much as possible, so there was that tension between the human qualities and what he’s become.”
Most importantly (though, sadly, not to his benefit in their own award nominations) Andy recently visited the Hollywood headquarters of the Screen Actors Guild, which in many ways is ground zero for the resistance and outright animosity directed toward the proliferation of CG characters in film. Happily, the experience was anything but negative.
“It was great,” beamed Andy. “I felt very proud to be able to say, ‘Hey, look, this isn’t taking work away from us.’ In terms of actor hours... my god, you get to redo it three times.” As for assuring his fellow actors that this is a practical, and not at all unnecessary, application of technology, Andy offered, “Not to blow our own trumpets, it is a bit of a breakthrough role for that, in terms of demonstrating how it can be effective when used legitimately. I mean, to try and replicate completely you and I sitting here in a scene…. well, there wouldn’t be any point. You may as well have you and me sitting here. It would cost too much, for starters; you’d much rather have two people playing off of each other.” Andy summed up the positives of the process most succinctly by saying, “It’s not just a matter of capturing nuance; it’s *amplifying* nuance. That’s where it’s legitimate.”
As for any lingering skepticism, Andy addressed that fairly capably. “I asked them, ‘What would be your fears?’ And they said it’s this sense of being robbed and manipulated. My answer to that is, if you’re acting on stage, obviously, you’re not really manipulated, but if you’re acting on screen... every actor’s performance onscreen is manipulated to a degree, by lighting, direction, music, *editing*, pace and everything. The mood of the piece, and the way you fit into it... you don’t have control of that.”
* * * *
As CG characters become increasingly common in film, actors have finally been given a place at the table – where their contributions are not token but substantial and invaluable – and that should be cause for rejoice, not reticence. And though the character of Gollum, as performed by Andy Serkis and enhanced by WETA, is a pioneering effort, their work should be recognized equally by the Academy not for the uniqueness of the achievement, but for the brilliance of its execution. A nomination of one without the other would, frankly, be akin to a Best Picture nomination sans the recognition of its director. For the effectiveness of Gollum is absolutely reliant upon Andy Serkis’s versatility as a performer (watch TOPSY-TURVY and 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE back to back for further evidence of this), brought to life through his remarkable vocal talents and movement skills (most notably, those of rock climbing). His fingerprints are all over this interpretation of Tolkien’s Gollum, which is why I say, for the purposes of this film, he is, indeed, the *author* of the character. It would be a shame if the performance branch of the Academy is too overwhelmed by innovation to give Andy his due.
Faithfully submitted,
P.S. A special thanks to Mr. Serkis for his graciousness in granting this interview, and being a real mensch. Also, thanks to Wendy Rutherford for setting it all up, and to Revolution Studios for keeping Moriarty busy.That’s right, Beaks. Rub it in. Twist the knife. If you hadn’t done such a good job, I’d toss you into Mt. Doom, ya bastage...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Stellar piece. IT is such a shame that, as all know, Serkis WONT get that academy nod like he deserves. Probably in 25-30 years when this sort of preformance is commonplace, he will get some kind of recognition, but until then, the travesty known as the Academy Awards will plunge on with characteristic snobbery. I find the back story on Gollum's development fascinating, and will head directly to the LOTR website for further revelation. Lets have more stuff like this in the future Mori!
-
get to the fucking point.
-
A good read for this Thursday morning.
-
Wow! I'm finally first! Anyhoo, a nomination of any type for Serkis will definitely be a diffucult decision for any academy - I don't think the world's ready for an actor/CGI performance. It's like saying Ahmed Best can be nominated for playing Jar Jar, who did some interesting physical work for the character, never minding how much people disliked him...where do you draw the line? Maybe Serkis and WETA could get a special recognition or award, just like Ben Burtt got back in 1977 for creating "special sounds and alien languages" for the original Star Wars.
Did anyone hear that Olivia Hussey is set to portray Mother Theresa soon - it's true, and there's also talk of a Led Zeppelin movie with Ewan McGregor as Robert Plant...keep your eyes and ears open. -
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps, as great as Andy Serkis was, he didn't give one of the five best performances in a supporting role this year? Has it? Just because Gollum was such an improvement over Jar Jar? Just because his character was the only emotionally deep one in The Two Towers? Was Serkis better than Chris Cooper? No way in hell. Was he better than Dennis Quaid? Not really. Paul Newman? One of the best actors ever slumming it a little, but still amazing. Christopher Walken? The best thing he's done in a LONG time. Ed Harris? The guy is phenomenal in everything, this small bit is no exception. Richard Gere? Yeah, maybe. Now while Serkis may have carried (or saved) the film he was in, he certainly should get a Most Valuable Player. But to pretend that what he did is automatically on par with some of our greatest actors working with great scripts...I don't know. It's daring, groundbreaking, and suprisingly brilliant. But I don't know if it's on the level of what Benicio Del Toro did in Traffic, or what James Coburn did in Affliction, or what the other actors in the race for this award did. People are getting way too worked up about something that maybe they shouldn't. You assume it's all about technicalities, when the Academy may just be judging performance. I'm sure if they felt Serkis was that good they'd write his name down. It seems everyone associated with AICN thinks The Two Towers was one of the top 3, if not THE best film of the year. Many don't agree. It's why TTT will not get a Best Picture nomination, and why Serkis won't get a nod either.
-
... is much more in depth...
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/383/383888p1.html -
If Serkis can get nominated because his body was motion captured, why couldn't Frank Oz get nominated because he operated and voiced a puppet? I propose that what Oz achieved in The Empire Strikes Back is no less groundbreaking or brilliant than what Serkis did. It may be more impressive. Frank Oz created a film icon for the ages, and infused Yoda with quite a range of emotion in the film. So since he didn't get recognized by the academy, why should we be in an uproar over Serkis? I say "great job", and leave it at that.
-
I have to agree with the above post. Serkis gets MVP but not an award nomination. That statement is not as negative as it seems, though. Look around you, fellow geeks. It has been a phenomenal year for movies. I think any movie in my top ten (maybe even top twenty) this year could have won Best Picture last year or two years ago. Look at the winners for the last five years: A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, and Titanic. American Beauty deserves to be up there, Shakespeare in Love, was fun, and I actually enjoyed Titanic. A beautiful Mind was competent. Gladiator had good fight scenes. But compare that list to 25th Hour, About Schmidt, Y tu Mama Tambien, Gangs of New York, The Two Towers, Far From Heaven, The Quiet American... or any of the other 30 or so really solid movies this year. Rejoice my brethren... this is a glorious time.
-
Jan 30, 2003 4:51:23 AM CST
acting is about realising a character, and Gollum is one of the
by quamb
he is no yoda dork...
-
Yoda don't have shit on Gollum. The fact that Gollum was created over Sarkis's body and how well he did such a realistic interpretation..He can have the best supporting award.
Sure beats Hale Berry's best actress award. She is a shitty ass actress in big breasts. Not to mention she has to go a push racial buttons at the award ceremony. She should have said just thank you. But no..she had to go and push how she's the black woman of a new generation. She can kiss my "white" ass.
Go Sarkis Go! -
The Academy very rarely get anything right. They always pick either something really dumb like Titanic or Rocky, or something really dull like Kramer Vs Kramer or Driving Miss Bastard Daisy. Fuck them. I don't need some old fart to tell me what is worthy and what is not.
-
I'm willing to believe that I'm the only person in the world who likes the "toad hit by lightning" line in X-Men, but anyone who thinks Halle Berry didn't deserve the Best Actress Oscar needs to go back and see Monster's Ball again. I can't say that I love that movie, but she captures desperation and despair like I've rarely seen. And yes, being the first black woman to win Best Actress is a BIG deal.
-
Really great interview.
-
Jan 30, 2003 6:50:35 AM CST
nice to see you get so worked up over something as trivial as an
by quamb
go get some fresh air hey?
-
I know that's unpopular opinion, and I know he worked really hard and I'm impressed by his performance. However, they dumbed down all of Gollum's lines until he was really just a junkie muppet. His biggest acting scene is that Gollum/Smeagol fight and after that he's given little else to do. He's fascinating to watch in the Marshes, but it's just not the greatest performance all year. I'm sure it was poorly edited and we'll see for sure on the dvd.
-
Jan 30, 2003 7:14:23 AM CST
'Gollum debate' is without question the best scene in any movie
by cash bailey
Andy Serkis deserves as much recognition as he can get for a remarkable performance of an almost un-actable character.
-
the great British public have shown their respect for andy serkis' work by putting him on the shortlist for empire magazine's ( britains biggest film mag) annual awards. see hear http://www.empireonline.co.uk/awards2003/bestbritactor.asp and good luck to him
-
Holy crap, I cannot believe I seriously just read someone equating the performance Serkis turned in as Gollum to the abortion that was Jar Jar Binks. Kill yourself...twice.
-
They keep referring to Serkis simply as "the voice of Gollum."
-
Kickass.
-
Aint it cool news.com is the precious
No, no its not
Yes, it is!!! -
Wasn't Robin Williams nominated for Aladdin and that was purely voice work. I agree this is a strange case, but it isn't so far out there that it should be such an issue.
-
I'm not trying to be Mr. Negative guy, but i'll lay it out. First off, im a fan of the LOTR movies, ireally liked fellowship and had some major issues with Towers, although i would call it a good film. If you watched what Serkis went through to successfully portray that character, then you should admit to the fact that what he did was far more innovative than anything ILM did with Jar Jar. Serkis and WETA did a great job. However, what we're looking at here is the performance itself. And let's be honest, Gollum isn't exactly an amazing performance. The portrayal, while perfect for Gollum, is still kind of a one dimensional thing. You have this crazy creature driven to madness, with some scary and at times humurous results, but there are no real levels there. It's not what went into it, but what is on the screen. Does the fact that Ray Liotta gained 35 pounds to play his character in Narc have anything to do with his performance? Does the work actors do have any impact on whether they get a nomination? No it doesnt. Do you know if Dicaprio in Gangs of New York spent a month prepping his character or 5 months? Did Hanks do any special research to play Michael Sullivan in Road to Perdition? These things dont factor into nominating performances. The blending of CGI and an actual actor is an amazing feat, but what gets nominated is the performance in the movie itself. All the hype being placed on the multi faceted technological aspects will sway no actors. That's why Serkis won't get a nomination. I think the greatest reward is the performance itself. It if takes a shiny trophy to make them feel better, let me be the first to donat 5 bucks to buy them a trophy.
-
Jan 30, 2003 9:30:20 AM CST
Latest evidence of Oscar idiocy: No "Makeup" nomination for LOTR
by the grin
The Best Achievement in Makeup nominations were announced this week, and only two movies qualified, according to Oscar voters. "Two Towers"? Nope. "The Hours" with its famous nose? Nope. "Gangs of NY" with its amazing wartime makeup? Nope. "Men in Black 2", in which makeup was the ONLY thing up to standard? Nope. HERE ARE THE TWO NOMINEES: "The Time Machine" and "Frida". I mean, seriously, are the Academy members TRYING to make utter fools of themselves?
-
Jan 30, 2003 9:47:55 AM CST
If he gets an Oscar, WETA should just roll him for it in at the
by weedymcsmokey
Come on - Gollum was great, but Oscar time? WETA did all the CGI, they followed his performance, yes, but you did not see one bit of Any Serkis up there. Give the credit where it's do - and it will, when WETA walks away with all the effects trophies. Like Hobbits, LOTR fans are so fucking melodramatic. It was a good movie - why does it have to be more?
-
Hey Serkis, I've got a used car to sell, can Gollum record me an ad. Since Serkis is already on his way to supermarket openings and dinner theater, cash in now!
The difference between Jim Henson and Frank Oz's work is THEY CONTROLLED THE CHARACTERS!!!!!!
Not animators. Serkis did the same work as Ahmed Best, countless movement coaches and every actor who has ever played Renfield in a Dracula movie. Just because he had better animation then Jar Jar and slightly less annoying voice (only slightly, and maybe just because he didn't step in dung) doesn't mean he has done anything new. Oscar? How about a razzie for biggest public relations hype over nothing.
-
Interesting stuff. I don't know if I agree with his deserving an Oscar, but the character was certainly fascinating, and the technical aspects of it equally so. The voice was amazing, captured it well for me. But I also haven't seen all the movies the other noms are in, so I can't flat oiut say he deserves an award. If there was a voice-actor category, hell yes. Hands down. Honestly, I loved FOTR, but thought that TTT was kind of LOTR lite still loved it, but it didn't grab me as the first one did.. Gollum was the best part of it for me. And Ryalto - take a fucking sedative, will you?
-
I don't know- at this point I think it would be sort of embarrassing to be nominated for an Academy Award. I mean, Russel Crowe Best Actor for GLADIATOR and not for The Insider? Denzel's complain-till-you-win award for Training Day (in which Mr. Washington ignores everyone else on screen with him)? And although it's been a few years, best director Robert Zemeckis for Forrest Gump (for directing a movie just like Mr. Spielberg would have)? There's plenty more annoyances, mostly involving who DIDN'T even get nominated. So, truly, I hope there's no nomination for Andy Serkis. His performance will be better remembered as the one WE noticed and not the one THEY did.
-
Jan 30, 2003 9:59:15 AM CST
The Academy is the least fresh and new thing about Hollywood.
by spamgelus
I don't know- at this point I think it would be sort of embarrassing to be nominated for an Academy Award. I mean, Russel Crowe Best Actor for GLADIATOR and not for The Insider? Denzel's complain-till-you-win award for Training Day (in which Mr. Washington ignores everyone else on screen with him)? And although it's been a few years, best director Robert Zemeckis for Forrest Gump (for directing a movie just like Mr. Spielberg would have)? There's plenty more annoyances, mostly involving who DIDN'T even get nominated. So, truly, I hope there's no nomination for Andy Serkis. His performance will be better remembered as the one WE noticed and not the one THEY did.
-
but eat shit Ryalto. Why do you fuckers INSIST on comparing LOTR movies to SW? They ARE different movies afterall. One set of these movies have emotional depth, fantastic dialogue and character development and the other one is Star Wars. So what if Harry and Moriarty etc, 'rave' about how good the LOTR movies are? What is wrong with that? You feel free to tell everyone your opinion. Why is it wrong for someone else to do the same thing and besides, if you really don't like it you can always FUCK OFF.
-
Eat, jerk off, eat, talk on the phone, take a crap, nap, eat, watch movies while eating, watch movies while jerking off, eat, jerk off, sleep. You asked.
-
"Christopher Walken? The best thing he's done in a LONG time." Are you kidding me? I didn't even have to see that movie to know it sucked! And it was a flop! Even the kids didn't go to see it! And you think he deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination? Are you off you're freaking ROCKER? Sheesh. You were talking about "Country Bears Jamboree" right? sk
-
That said, Eddie Murphy should have been nominated for "Shrek" (and he should have won for "The Nutty Professor," but that's a different argument).
-
Saying Serkis deserves any more credit than the animators who actually made Gollum come to work is silly. The animation staff had to re-work just about every shot--often throwing the motion capture away. No disrespect to Serkis meant, but if the animators don't get nominated as well for Best Supporting Actor, it'll be forever considered the sham it is.
-
only mr. beaks could make a AICN interview sound like an article from the new yorker. anywho, to the point, serkis doesn't deserve a nomination. he deserves recognition. the two towers isn't going to get best picture, if it's even nominated, but that doesn't mean shit. it's going to go to some glorified candles and kleenex movie like 'the hours'. would i watch TTT over any movie released this year? fuck yes. does that mean the academy will bow to my 12 sided dice and give lord of the rings best picture? probably not. they either go incredibly mainstream, or for the latest critic's wet dream. sad, really.
-
Jan 30, 2003 11:54:41 AM CST
Serkis not as good as the other potential nominees for Supportin
by wardog
Half of the nomimees for the Supporting categories almost every year are not worth it, and this year will be no exception. Paul Newman? Gimme a break. The man's had his years in the sun, not to mention his glories. Give Serkis a nomination, at the very damned least!
-
whereas Jar-Jar was not. It's a fine line, but the crucial difference is that Gollum is integral to the plot, but needed to do things that a normal actor couldn't do to fully flesh out the role (it's nuance, like Serkis says)...but JJ Binks was completely useless in TPM and only had marginal value in AOTC. Gollum just shows that Lucas really, really, really needs to replace some of his yes men with someone who has the balls to tell the man when he has bad ideas. Which, tragically, seems more often than not these days.
-
What the fuck, Beaks? Missed opportunity to be sure. I'm sorry, but 24 Hour Party People is just one of those movies that's stuck with me and won't vacate my skull, and it was a far more rewarding viewing than TTT (a movie I liked, a dvd I'll buy, and Serkis was great in it, but the endless LOTR-centrism of this site is just getting OLD). I'm not saying you should have ignored Gollum, that's a brave and inventive performance, but as a character, Gollum is nowhere near as complicated as the actual Martin Hannett was. A man who basically defined how music would sound from then on (mainly by designing the drumming production for JoyDivision, which would be carried over to NewOrder, used on Blue Monday, which inspired Quincy Jones, who produced Thriller, which inspired...and so on, and so on). A few questions about that film, that scene, that personage, and that completely chamaeleonic performance (Gollum looks more like Serkis than Hannett does) would have been nice. For fuck sake, THERE ARE OTHER MOVIES OUT THERE TO TALK ABOUT BESIDES THE FUCKING HOBBITS. Please don't drop the ball like that again, you were priviledged with an opportunity I'd have paid much for, and it was just saddening to read down the page, further and further down, and to just see the title of 24HPP dropped at the end with no significant question asked. Fucking hell.
-
TTT is the mainstram crowd pleasing one. Other than Gollum, it's an emotionally limp flick. Just wait until it comes out on video, and the hype clears.
-
This was a great movie, and Serkis delivered a fine performance in this film...Oh and that "Final Destination" add is really starting to piss me off...
-
the entire Talkback of every article ever. Hehehe...
-
for the Elephant Man and he spent the whole movie either in heavy make-up or with a bag over his head. Gollum's spilt-personality scene was the most riveting acting I've seen onscreen all year. I think he deserves a nod. If Richard Gere got a Golden Globe for tap dancing, Serkis deserves an oscar nomination for being the skeleton, soul, and voice of Gollum,
-
All these folks comparing LotR to SW again. You can't compare the two! The original trilogy of SW, perhaps, yes, but not Episode I or II, and likely not III if Lucas keeps it up. I'm sorry, but the new SW movies have nothing on LotR. And for all those who hold Yoda in such high regard... oh, yeah, Yoda is a really complex CGI character. Please. He wasn't more than a muppet spouting semi-philospical utterage during the original Star Wars movies, but the character worked and helped push the story along. He became memorable because he was tiny, old, and supposedly wise. Today he's a CGI creature + muppet spouting even more contrived dialogue such as "Begun this Clone War has." and "The Dark Side clouds everything." Then, just to make Yoda "more cool" they decide to have him do a few flips, twists and spins with a lightsabre to make people go "Wow, the little guy is kicking ass!" These aren't gems here, people. Yoda has become an action figure. Gollum is a far more depthy character AS PRESENTED ON SCREEN. You see how his mind works and that is a MAJOR part of any character, anywhere. Maybe Yoda has issues of his own that make him more than a green-skinned dialogue-dispenser, but we don't see it on screen in Ep 1 or 2. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's the truth.
-
Many actors collect nods along the years. They eventually may collect an Oscar nominally on the back of a weak film, but in reality it is "Buggins' Turn" for the previous performances.
Many people agree that TTT was an outstanding picture, but the general view that the Acadamy will wait for ROTK and then hand out the gongs - certainly for Peter Jackson, but also maybe for some of the other performances. Andy could certainly be a candidate, particularly if those voting have seen any of the Gollum filming scenes in the making of specials.
From the "Making Ofs", it is clear that a) Gollum was very close to Andy's face and expressions and b) Andy animated Gollum through his MC acting, which is why the character is so good (it really isn't just the voice).
-
ROBIN WILLIAMS DIDN'T WIN AN OSCAR FOR ALADDIN, and I wish idiots would check their facts before making their weak cases for Serkis and an oscar. Robin won a Saturn Award, which is given out by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films. That is what Sekis might win, but sorry, he dosn't deserve an Oscar.
-
Read his website and watch the video on the Lord of the Rings site, this man goes to the utmost lengths to do his job. Doing that kind of voice and running around on all fours in a unitard for long periods of time was no cakewalk and the man not only did a commited performance, he did it well. Like Ian Holm, Serkis disappears completely into his role. Compare his murderous thug from Oliver Twist to the goofy choreographer in Topsy Turvy and you'll see what I mean. + Serkis will be acting in the flesh in a flashback in Return of the King, he should be eligible for best supporting actor next year. We had a glut of good movies in 2002, maybe 2003 will suck badly enough that Serkis will stand a chance.
-
Instead of creating a new animated character award (that may and may not be important from year to year), they should add an award for Best Scene. Gollum's preformance would definately deserve a nomination there, plus it would actually be an interesting race from year to year.
-
Give that man the MTV Movie Award for Best Breakthrough Performance! Come on!
-
I'm agreeing with Irie. Serkis' performance was a starting point for what actually would up on screen. Any Oscar for CGI characters should automatically go to their animators.
-
Let's just go ahead and admit it. The most prestigious award in the Entertainment Industry is nothing more than a political decision to praise someone in high favor with the AMPAS twats at the moment. Or if they want to make an especially prolific statement. For example, last year's BLACK empowerment special. Sorry, but Will Smith was NOT that good in ALI (In fact, ALI wasn't that good, period), and Denzel Washington's Best Actor win was absolutely ridiculous. Ethan Hawke was better in Training Day that D.W. was. And coincidentally, Halle Berry wins in Best Actress (I had her in 3rd. Nicole dominated Moulin Rouge) and Sidney OPoitier wins a Lifetime Achievement Award (and rightfully so). Meanwhile, Beautiful Mind beats out FOTR for adapted screenplay (MY ASS!!!!) and Opie wins over Peter Jackson (Cuz AMPAS didn't give it to him when he earned it back with Apollo 13). Every year there's something just not right about the winners. One of the most glaringly emabarassments for AMPAS last year was Randy Newman FINALLY winning the golden boy...ON HIS 16th ATTEMPT!!! Noone even KNEW that until the announcer said "16th nomination...1st win" and THEN everyone gave the great songwriter a standing O. Why? Because they never respected him enough to even know that little fact ahead of time. Oh, Julia went 0-2 and she "deserved" the Oscar for Erin Brokovich. Peter O'Toole is 0-6 so this year they want to give him an HONORARY Oscar. Opie was 0-2 I believe until last year. ANd AMPAS wasn't gonna give Russell Crowe the Oscar 3 years in a row if Tom Hanks couldn't do it first. Nonono, Let's give it to Denzel.
The Oscars are no longer the signifying icon of Movie Making Moments but a political handout for actors that need a little boost either to thewir ego or their fame or their wallet or any combination thereof. Now that Julia has hers, she can just die happy knowing that her work is considered good and her lie is validated and has meaning. THe Oscar is bullshit anymore. But I'll still be watching them 3-23-03. Just like I do every year. But The People's Choice Awards are so much better for realism... -
24 Hour Party People was the most fun I had with a movie last year, and if Serkis deserves awards consideration, it's for his performance as Hannett. Steve Coogan (Tony Wilson) and Sean Harris (Ian Curtis) also deserve recognition, as do the editors and the beautiful cinematography of Robby Muller, the best digital photography I've yet seen.
-
"I didn't need to see it to know it sucked?" And "Catch Me If You Can" a box office flop? To date, it has made $145 million dollars. Unlike you, I actually bother to see a film before I belittle (or praise) its performances... and I can tell you that Christopher Walken's performance was definitely Oscar-caliber. But don't let complete ignorance of a subject stop you from spouting off about it.
-
The Rev was referring to the "Country Bears Jamboree". It was a joke. The only thing as bad as talkback ignorance is talkback kneejerk reactionism.
-
...when we get to see Smeagol, Serkis will stand a better chance of getting a nomination or an Oscar. But while he easily stole the movie, he doesn't stand a chance of getting a nom based on just vocals. A large part of acting involves facial expressions and body language, and noone can see that directly (I would imagine some or many of Gollum's facial expressions were based on Serkis during filming).
-
Jan 30, 2003 9:57:58 PM CST
Excuse me, Mr. Beaks, but Chris Cooper is NOT a perennial nomine
by ribbons
Get your facts straight, loser. You were wrong and I was right. That means my penis is bigger than yours! Ha!
-
Or at least it should be. I guess if you were a smartass who liked to gloat, then it would probably be smaller, but whatever. You get the joke, right? RIGHT???
-
Jan 30, 2003 10:43:50 PM CST
just like the gang of orhpaned hippy kids from Mad Max Beyond Th
by chuck norris
andy serkis basically ruined LOTR-TTT for chuck norris. the camera was basically like saying "I love you" every time gollum was in frame, which was lioke 80% of the movie. I mean the techie dweebs who created him most have jizzed so much because they never let gollum act like a real character, he's always the center of attention, "look at me everyone I'm a computer generated fucking annoying bitch", plus his voice was just awful. it is at the exact right frequency where it starts to affect my bowel movements, this from a guy who has had some severe bowel movement problems in the past. thanks alot andy "dick" serkis, if I drop some turds in my sleep tonight I'm gonna smear them on your dog. love, NORRIS
-
The Visual Effects Oscar should go to Minority Report over Two Towers or Star Wars. That was some mindblowingly subtle and seamless shit they pulled off there, boy.
-
If you had, you'd know just how utterly redundant your post was. The whole point is the Andy Serkis didn't just do voice work. through motion capture he provided the basis for Gollum's physognimy as well (facial expressions included). And Sideshow_Bill, I'm glad someone else sees the funny side of the Smiths. Girlfriend in a Coma is knowing self parody at its best. I love the Smiths, but Morrissey is too often painted as a pure miserablist by his oh-so-tormented fans. No-one gives him credit for being one of the most incisively witty and satirical lyricists in the post-punk era. Not, of course, that he wasn't (isn't) a miserable bastard.
-
McG is helming a movie based around the Hot Wheels toy cars?? You gotta respect the creative passion behind this concept.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/va/20030130/104399805300.html
So I guess McG definitely won't be doing Superman then, unless they can combine the two franchises. -
did anybody here even see the time machine? neither did i.
-
Dudes... I adore TTT, and I love Star Wars, but neither Gollum nor Jar Jar were the first believable, developed, moving CG performance. Doesn't anybody remember Draco from Dragonheart? The movie may not have been that amazing, but man... the dragon WAS. And it wasn't just a velociraptor effect, either. That was a performance. Whether it was Sean Connery's voice work, or the effects team that created the dragon, or a combo of the two... That dragon was an amazing achievement, and he moved me in ways I can only compare to ET or Yoda or Kermit the Frog. Go back and watch Dragonheart again, and let me know if you agree. Gollum is the milestone, don't get me wrong. But Draco was the first. And he remains head and shoulders above Jar Jar Binks.
-
You're officially the BIGGEST FUCKING ASSHOLE that ever posted on these boards.You've got to be a troll, because of all the stupid things I've ever read on this site, you have eclipsed them all. If you were serious in your post, please blow your head off and rid the world of your stupidity. Pretty please?
-
last is first and first is last...oh the irony of life!
-
Jan 31, 2003 9:44:44 AM CST
"the endless LOTR-centrism of this site is just getting OLD"
by minderbinder
Let's see. So far we have two of the best reviewed movies of 2001 and 2002, #2 and #1 at the box office worldwide, a ton of award nominations and a few wins. The rest of the world is paying attention to these movies, why shouldn't AICN? It's not like the site has run twenty articles about A Guy Thing. (if you don't want to read about LOTR, don't click on the fucking articles)
-
Jan 31, 2003 9:49:59 AM CST
Mystique, interesting comparison, but you miss the point: The di
by minderbinder
However it was created, Gollum's "performance" WAS simply one of the best of the year (THE best I've seen so far, although I'll admit I haven't seen some of the likely nominees).
-
Jan 31, 2003 10:01:36 AM CST
"as bad as Jar Jar was, George Lucas did it first" Nope. I gue
by minderbinder
JJB was a decent animation job, at best an improvement on past CGI. I don't see how he's a milestone in any way. And I'll ask it again, did Ahmet Best REALLY do mocap for JJB? Give me a link, I want to read about it. If they did, it doesn't really show.
-
Jan 31, 2003 10:09:06 AM CST
Andy Serkis contributed more than just the voice, follow this li
by gypsytrobot
http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_editorials_becomegollum.html
Check it out you ignorant fools. -
http://www.marketplace.org/play/audio.php?media=/2003/01/serkis_full
-
The headline read "Mr Beaks talks with Andy Serkis," NOT "Yet another story about Lord of the fucking Rings." You see, I know it's hard to believe, but there WERE other movies last year besides Lord of the fucking Rings, and Andy Serkis, believe it or not, was actually IN one of them! This happened to be one of my five favorite movies of 2002, and when I saw his name, I got really excited about the possibility of 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE being discussed! But, alas, it was not to be, it was just another fucking story about Lord of the fucking Rings. Because that's all anyone on this site seems to care about anymore. If the headline had read "Yet another fucking story about Lord of the fucking Rings," I'd not have clicked on it. And I'd never have had to explain myself to a dumb bastard like yourself who obviously didn't even read my fucking post.
-
Big ups, homie.... But 4 short months to X2 - bamf! indeed....
-
The Academy Awards aren't really that important. As a critic or fan, we shouldn't be tempted to lambast their democratic process, curtail our rights to free speech with stupidity, and confirm the fanatic behind the word fan in AICN opinions. The Academy Awards are what they are and no-one will be the worse for wear for just another paper weight around the house. I honestly couldn't see how anyone could ever have any hard feelings about being a part of Lord of the Rings whaaaatsover, but if suits all the professionals anymore and the suits that make the suits upstairs, then the word "jealousy" hasn't been used nearly enough. After all, I'm the leopard with the sots, right?!
Thank God, for internet annonimity. It's better than a stage name.*chuckle lol
(For more information visit Ian McKellens 1/29 e-post at his website.)
Soooo anyway...thank-you is the word I will use today. Thank-you Mr. Serkis for a job well done.
Now where's my checkbook at? -
How dare they ask an actor about a role that's one of the most widely seen and talked about of the year? Nah, let's ignore it just because some jackass is tired of hearing about that particular movie. Keep the comedy coming, you're a riot...
-
A lot of people didnt like dragonheart but I thought it was underrated, and Draco was moving. As for Jar Jar binks, Ahmed Best may have done some work for that but it definitely doesnt show like it does with Gollum. Gollum was believable as a character, and showed human emotion. Jar Jar did not show emotion and was only believable because he was so incredibly irritating. Its clear Andy Serkis isnt going to get the nomination. None of the other award shows have nominated him, and they'll all realize their mistake when they see him as Smeagol in 'return of the king'. The 'Smeagol becomes Gollum' scene will be awesome.
-
But Mori said it was true that Ratner was gone, and he's an insider! He knows what's going on with the next HP movie and EVERYTHING! What am I supposed to do now?! Head....exploding....... gahhhh! Just kidding. Sorry for being a dick about it, but the rumors did sound kind of bullshit. Oh well, shit happens. By the way, I'm not out to diss people in particular and I don't really like putting people down, but I really have to give a shout-out to Thomas Edison for taking Drew to task in the 'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days' article. He was spot-on. Drew (can I call ya Drew?), I've got nothing against you and people give you and Harry a lot of unnecessary crap, but if ever you should grin and bear it from a member of the talkback community, it's for comments like that. This is a male-centric site, I know, but c'mon, you had it coming, even if you were just joking.
-
Turd, come on man, lose the cover, I know who you really are, MR KIP WINGER. nice try you big lephracaun penis, but I could sense it was you because of your french-like insult pattern. haven't I taught you your lesson - don't mess with chuck norris and america! Love, Chuck norris
-
No denying the real sentiment in Morrissey's lyrics. I think it's the mixture of arch wit and genuine pathos that makes him so great. I too started listening to the Smiths in my early teens and completely missed the humour, but have gone back recently (saw Morrissey in Brisbane last October, he was glorious) and had a good laugh in between the bouts of maudlin introspection. Rain_Dog, who would go out tonight, but who hasn't got a stitch to wear.
-
What I read was interesting but it was really just a story about why Serkis should get an academy nomination. What I wanted was to hear from Serkis. Too bad. Opportunity missed.
-
They should indeed create a new category for Best CG Character. There should also be a Best Opening Credits Sequence category, a Best Subtitle Font category, a Best Use of a Sexual Reference category, and a Most Memorable Line of Dialogue category. If anyone likes these, I have other suggestions.
-
Feb 01, 2003 1:45:17 AM CST
Honestly, this really needs to be a new Oscar category. CG acti
by empyreal0
Mo-cap rarely comes out completely clean. It certainly didn't with Gollum, according to Cinefex. There was a LOT of effort on the part of digital artists to make adjustments to the performance of Gollum to make up for certain limitations posed by the mo-cap process. For example, Gollum is skinner than Andy, therefore, when Andy is all bunched and huddled up, Gollum's limbs hover a few inches away from his body and the poses have to be altered. Gollum's neck was longer as well, so adjustments had to be made there. Tracking dots on Andy's face is similarly imperfect. All of this nitty gritty work amounts to a lot more than clean-up - it affects the entire performance. So in reality, Andy and the animators made the performance. This doesn't change anything, though, related to how groundbreaking the process was. I think people will see in a few years how significantly the act of using actual actors for CG characters will affect everything. Better technology should be able to streamline the process and remove as many niggles as possible. Anyway, the academy won't recognize this for the groundbreaking work that it was. They've got their heads too far up their asses.
-
Feb 02, 2003 5:16:40 PM CST
2002 - the year CGI characters stopped being showy and finally b
by tall_boy
I'm speaking of Yoda and Gollum this year. Regardless of LOTR vs. SW bashing (which is always a kick in the sack on this site) I found for the first time this year these two CGI characters stopped being "an effect" and then finally became characters. It wasn't showing off (ie. Jar Jar or Casper) for FX sake, it was getting an honest-to-God character in there. Gollum's great scenes was his inner monologue (his one in the middle and the final ones were great) and Yoda not only finally kicked ass but Rob Coleman and ILM managed to keep him consistent with the rest of the films so far (great fuckin job, btw). Great voice work by Frank Oz and Andy respectively. I think Gollum's performance was grounded a bit more in realism (and more creepy) because of the motion capture involved. Yoda, however, has never pretended but they were able to free him up immensely from the static camera-trick movement he did in the other films. As for an Oscar nod - it'd be really freakin cool but I think its too wierd for the glitz and glamour of the Oscar celeb-blowjob show. still, I think CGI characters can only get better, and its going to stop finally being just for the hell of it.
-
just a side note - looking on the Ep. I DVD, they did some motion capture for some complex stuff - ie. getting his leg caught in the battle droid. But ILM plays fast and loose with motion capture. They used it a little bit but he was mostly hand animated. it worked pretty good for Yoda, though. Jar-Jar, not so much.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts