An Oscar for Gollum?

I just found this on Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2002/12/30/gollum_actor/index.html

Should the actor who voiced and modeled Gollum be eligible for an acting Oscar? I think he has a pretty strong case and a very strong performance, but I don’t think the Academy will go for it.

What to you think fellow QT3ers?

-DavidCPA

Wouldn’t his role be along the lines of Tom Hanks as the voice of Woody in Toy Story? Do they have a category for that?

The Academy Awards need a seiyuu category :)

I think he should be eligible, but I doubt the Academy would agree. We’ve seen in the past that they consider voice acting to be the redheaded stepchild of “real” acting–that was basically their reason for disqualifying animated films from Best Picture consideration.

Personally, I think the Oscars are a joke. It’s fun to watch the stars show up and cast nasty looks at each other, but it’s not like the awards have any basis in real merit.

Except Serkis was extensively motion-captured for all of Gollum’s movements and expressions. Basically, the only difference between Serkis and Gollum was that the animators skinnied him up and made him look all gangly and whatnot.

If Tom Hanks had to wear a suit and was cavorting all over the set like Serkis had to, then the two would be equal. But Hanks just did voice-work. Serkis did everything short of starving himself.

Honestly, a more apt comparison is nominating Jar-Jar, since he was extensively mocapped also.

Nono, that’s not the same. No one is going to tell me that they have a face as expressive as Gollum’s.

Gollum was CG? I thought it was Thom Yorke.

Except Serkis was extensively motion-captured for all of Gollum’s movements and expressions. Basically, the only difference between Serkis and Gollum was that the animators skinnied him up and made him look all gangly and whatnot.

If Tom Hanks had to wear a suit and was cavorting all over the set like Serkis had to, then the two would be equal. But Hanks just did voice-work. Serkis did everything short of starving himself.

Honestly, a more apt comparison is nominating Jar-Jar, since he was extensively mocapped also.[/quote]

I hope they did more than just skinny him up. That is a face only a mother could love. :wink:

I think Steve Buscemi is crying in the inside right now.

I think they should have a category for voice-over work, and this would qualify, much like Tom Hanks as Woody, Matt Damon as a horse this summer, whatever. That’s a good category to reward animated work, and in the future, more and more CG character work.

But despite many legitimate claims for the performance, the physical portion was ultimately “performed” by an animator, despite the mo-cap so it’s half a regular performance. Serkis used John Hurt as the Elephant Man as an example, and the comparison may be more relevant if there was another actor under the latex in that case. And the comparison to Kidman in The Hours is just goofy.

Fuck the Oscers.

I think everyone can accept that voice acting is not the same as physical acting, but it’s a pretty big leap to declare that it’s inferior, since the differences are a two way street. Physical actors don’t have to worry about delivering a performance that doesn’t feel unnatural for their animated character, since they don’t have one. It’s not easy to act an animated role convincingly, and I’ve seen plenty of otherwise good actors do a crappy job of it.

By the Academy’s logic, black and white films shouldn’t be eligible for cinematography awards, since the cinematographer has fewer colors to worry about.

Gollum was neither boring nor pretentious. :D

(OK, so Radiohead was good…The Bends is one of my favorite albums…but no one can argue that they aren’t shit now.)

I think there’s more of a difference than that. A good actor will convey a lot of stuff just with an expression, a look, etc. In fact, the Gollum character does that a few times. And none of that was Andy Serkis (someone above said the facial expressions were mo capped, but I saw an interview with Serkis where he said that wasn’t true–it was all original animation. Just the body movements were mo capped, and not even all of those).

I do agree there should be some sort of separate category for voice-over work, though. It’s becoming more and more of a big deal. And I also agree that the Oscars are basically a joke they way they’re given out nowadays.

I can. Amnesiac and Kid-A are both tons better than the Bends.

someone above said the facial expressions were mo capped, but I saw an interview with Serkis where he said that wasn’t true–it was all original animation. Just the body movements were mo capped, and not even all of those

They were mo capped to a degree. The current Cinefex (a quarterly publication on visual effects) goes into great detail on how Gollum was created and they did do some mo cap on his face (they even have pictures of it). These were used as guides for the animators so the final result isn’t strictly mocapped but a combination of motion capture and animation.

-Kevin Grey

Howabout an Oscar for Oscar, whose pathos-filled rendition of “I Love Trash” captured the smelly, soggy weldschmertz of millions? His performance inspired children to relish squalor and grow up to be dyspeptic old grouches like me…and Jeff Green.

I say YES!!!

This is a tough one. Serkis did a lot of work for the role and aside from the final appearance and facial ticks, Gollum is Serkis. But if CGI keeps taking the big steps forward that Gollum represents could have a fifty year old Julia Roberts doing motion capture acting for a twenty year old Roberts CGI character? Is this the type of thing the Academy wants to encourage?

I say if you want to give credit to this performance and its “groundbreakingness”, give the movie a “special Oscar” like they did for Mary Poppins and Snow White.

Troy

I don’t think this has been mentioned yet, but GMicek and I actually saw a commercial promoting the idea of “Gollum” getting an Oscar. It was basically just clips from the vid and some voiceover talking about how he left an impression on our hearts or other loaded word-speak.