If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History'
- Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry
- Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too
- Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
- Effort Underway To Have Chile Add Access To Knowledge, Digital Sovereignty, And Privacy To Chilean Constitution
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Even if he was human
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He's is not a virtual actor
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gollum
It was completely believable (TT was the first movie in a while where I completely bought the alternate world without being aware of the suspension of disbelief). Furthermore, I never really understood this section of LoTR prior to seeing the movie. In the book - I just found Gollum's ravings tedious, repetitive and annoying. I also thought he was completely evil and had no idea why on earth Frodo bothered with him at all. In the book, it seemed like a contrived set of scenes, with Frodo coming off looking like a fool.
As a result, I was hoping Gollum in the movie would be a short appearance. Instead, I was completely blown away by the way Gollum was portrayed. Gollum onscreen made me sympathize with him, and even pity him.
I don't know if it deserved "best actor" (due the blurring between digital effects and human performance) - but out of everything I have ever seen in my life, that performance was one of the most effective I have ever seen.
For that reason, it seems a bit strange that the Oscars are ignoring it altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]