Forums » The Lounge

Practical Effect Gollum looks way better than CGI Gollum

    • 441 posts
    December 4, 2017 9:53 PM EST

    Lord of the Rings spoilers?

    Was CGI mocap Gollum groundbreaking at the time? I remember hearing that somewhere. 

    I just think that the pratical effect Gollum is so much better.

    I watched all of the extended editions of LotR one or two months ago, and the beginning of Return of the King paints Smeagol's downward spiral into Gollum beautifully. I really got the sense that Gollum was a victim, and he looked utterly horrifying crawling around with practical effects. He was absolutely wretched. 

    Then we go back to CGI Gollum and it doesn't even feel like the same character. Imagine if you replaced the CGI Gollum with the PE Gollum in every scene in the movie. It is a whole lot creepier. The thought of seeing the PE Gollum scuttle around for a third of the screen time or whatever and seeing him smile and sing would be a lot more impactful. And Frodo's reactions to Gollum such as grimacing at the sight of him would feel realer.

    And before you say "CGI Gollum is a more accurate portrayal of Gollum", let me remind you that the Uruks look nothing like they do in the books. The PE Gollum fits in way more with Peter Jackson's representation of Orcs and overall aesthetic in general.

    PS. I don't hate CGI. CGI is good in plenty of movies. Gollum just doesn't fit here with the art design of the rest of the film.

    This post was edited by Gollum at December 4, 2017 9:57 PM EST
    • 611 posts
    December 4, 2017 10:03 PM EST

    As someone who has never seen the movies, I prefer the physical effects version of these two. I would watch that one.

    • 441 posts
    December 4, 2017 10:12 PM EST

    The PE one evokes a sense of disgust to me.

    Here is the part of the film showing Smeagol metamorphasize into Gollum if you haven't seen it and want to.


    This post was edited by Gollum at December 4, 2017 10:12 PM EST
    • 611 posts
    December 4, 2017 10:28 PM EST

    Good lord. Yeah, I'll watch that verion.

    Also I meant "practical." Practical effects. 

    • 73 posts
    December 5, 2017 11:20 AM EST

    Got to agree with you Gollum.  I think they did CGI mocap just becaouse they could and not necessarily because it was the best choice.

    • Moderator
    • 724 posts
    December 5, 2017 11:46 AM EST

    I've never heard of the other version of Gollum. Really interesting and I tend to agree. CGI can be great, but things as impacful as Gollum can be affected negatively by being computurized. 

    • 441 posts
    December 5, 2017 11:41 PM EST
    Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so. I know that they are old movies, but it is definitely a missed opportunity that I have personally never heard anyone else mention before.