I have a question for bookfags who have read LOTR
Was Gollum/Smeagol's characterization as a schizophrenic type character a sensible interpretation on Peter Jackson's part?
How did his characterization differ in the book and do you think it was better or worse?
IIRC the books don't go into Gollum's monologues but his actions clearly hint at him being unhinged and malevolent.
I think he more mutters shit under his breath.
Was he a sympathetic character or was he more of an evil, unrepentant type?
He's more of (keep in mind I haven't read it in years) a symbol of ultimate greed. He's someone who only wants to the point that he even neglects himself.
He's the most corrupt by the ring because he's kept it for so long without becoming a wraith, which I believe had something to do with Hobbits.
Anyways, he's not really a sympathetic character, just a personification of greed.
Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh didn't give a shit about the books and created mindless action films for children.
The split opinion between Jackson/Walsh's first total shit trilogy and their second is hilarious because there's literally no difference between the two. It's all garbage which disrespects the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the entire universe and series.
Fuck anyone who likes Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Pipeweed is marijuana? No, fuck you.
Whoah Chris, I didn't know you could use the internet.
From what i remember Smeagol was just sneaky and greedy rather than malevolent. It's a pretty accurate adaption regardless.
This is a good interpretation imo. I haven't read the books in years either but I agree for the most part. My only addition to this is that I personally do see him as a sympathetic character -- despite, or perhaps because of all the reasons you stated. I suppose that has more to do with the reader's interpretation of the character than anything explicitly intended by Tolkien. Furthermore, based on Jackson's interpretation as depicted in his films, I would wager that his interpretation of the character would be more in line with my own as far as sympathy for him goes.
>Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh didn't give a shit about the books and created mindless action films for children.
This is just plain wrong. The Hobbit maybe, but not the original trilogy. I mean, okay it's all open to interpretation of course, but oh man do I feel sorry for anyone who has this opinion.
Kill yourself. The LOTR movies are the most accurate adpations to an actual series of novels that has ever been made. Name a single book that was more accurate. Go on I dare you.
>I would wager that his interpretation of the character would be more in line with my own as far as sympathy for him goes
Same, Jackson added a lot of character to him without making it overly dramatic or fake.
I don't see him as a sympathetic character so much in the books, but in the movies his conflicting nature definitely fleshes out his character more and gives the audience some understanding other than just "greed corrupts."
The great thing about the books is that his character is a perfect illustration of greed in that there exists an irony: greedy people being the poorest.
It's definitely in line with Tolkien's Catholic views, and it's a great message.
I'm not a very smart man and I'll admit it mate but was it supposed to show his ability to no longer be able to be redeemed? I don't know. I've tried to read the books but found it really hard but I like the movies and really want to know.
>what is Watchmen
H O L Y K E K
O
L
Y
K
E
K
KYS LOTRFAG REDDITOR
HAHAHAHAHAHA try again bitch. Not that a comic = an actual novel.
>what is a graphic novel
>it's another Chris Tolkien acts like his father's books were deep philosophical pieces of literature post
A graphic novel is still a comic no matter how much you want it to be a novel.
Harry Potter 1=3?
I love the LOTR movies btw
This is correct and everyone who praises Lotr flicks is just trying to be accepted between fa/tv/virgins
No Country For Old Men
I've read the Hobbit a billion times and this is pretty spot on. He's the personification of evil, jealousy, and greed. Binded to his desire to regain the ring, he inadvertently helps Bilbo when he was trying to screw him over. Luckily Bilbo had sting on him or Gollum would have definitely killed him. You are not suppose to sympathize with him but rather see what happens to a man when he lets his most primal desires overcome him.
Do you believe that to be the ultimate truth of the matter? Toppest of keks, even if I'm being trolled.
Turned into cheap jumpscares. And no, there wasn't a love triangle with Sam/Frodo/Gollum in the books. It was all in Jacksons' head. Actually, most of their interactions during and after Faramir scenes (one of the most violated characters in those abortions) were made up
Its been more than ten years, son. Time to take the nostalgia glasses off and see this hollywood cashgrab for what it is. A mere dungheap of action scenes devoid of any artistic value
xD +1 *upvote* epic!
>Turned into cheap jumpscares
What?
It's not that he couldn't be redeemed but that he chose not to. He hates himself for being greedy but can't overcome it so he gives in to it. The Hobbits (minus Sam) sympathize with him because they see how corrupted he's become from the ring, but the quest would have failed had he not been so.
His character is interesting because you're left to wonder how much is he struggling against the ring's influence and how much is he struggling against his own desire. He's a very understandable character despite being so innwardly and outwardly evil.
...
it's like the evolution of novel. with pictures and less boring text
He's basically a heroin addict.
>1=3
What does that mean?
>ffwded through all gollum's stuff in lotr
the cgi looked so fucking bad
Same it has aged like absolute shit lol top
So is it even possible to offer criticism for LotR? It seems that even the most well-reasoned criticism just gets memed at and ironicposted into oblivion.
The series is flawless? Pipeweed is marijuana and that's ok?
>only weed makes you feel something when you smoke it. Tobacco does not