Archive Home > Movies - The Fellowship of the Ring
fire84 27/Nov/2004 at 09:26 PM
Scout of Lothlorien Points: 151 Posts: 18 Joined: 21/Oct/2004
i have one question. at the beginning of the movie the fellowship, glaldriel was saying about how the ring came to the creature gollum. but in the return of the king it shows that gollum wasn’t a creature when the ring came to what i want to know is shouldn’t they have showed what happened to gollum in the fellowship instead of the return of the king?and why did pj wait till the third movie until he showed gollums life?
Numenor Racer 28/Nov/2004 at 02:39 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 342 Posts: 12 Joined: 25/Nov/2004

I think that PJ wanted Gollum to remain a mystery for FOTR. There was only 2 shots of him (Prolouge, and in Moria) that i can remember. For the movie they didnt want the audience to know whether Gollum would help or hinder the quest of the ring. Gandalf even says in Moria tha he doesnt know if Gollums part will be good or evil.

In the books it wasnt until later when Tolkien told Gollums story either

Searogim 28/Nov/2004 at 03:54 AM
High Elder of Isengard Points: 22795 Posts: 21919 Joined: 06/Feb/2004
I think that they just wanted to keep the fact that Gollum was once a creature simular to a hobbit a secret a little longer, and also, it was only early in the movie so maybe they didn’t want to explain too much too early on and confuse people.
Tornihyanda 28/Nov/2004 at 04:09 AM
Guardian of the Arkenstone Points: 31166 Posts: 22139 Joined: 06/Jul/2003

Well, I think I understand Peter Jackson’s idea; is in "The Return of the King" where the conflict Smeagol / Gollum is stronger, more visible and important. So he decided that it was important to people to understand that. If he had put that in the beginning, most of the people who saw the movie and did not know Tolkien’s works, would forget that a little bit that part and would not understand how Smeagol became Gollum. I think...

Sardarius 28/Nov/2004 at 04:11 AM
Banned Points: 2530 Posts: 3982 Joined: 02/Apr/2004
Well, do you think the audience would understand what kind of creature Gollum was if they had shown all of that in the beginning? Gollum was made to be kind of a mystic figure in the beginning. The details about him emerge as he gets closer to Sam and Frodo, so it would spoil everything to tell it in the beginning.
Anika Bolger 28/Nov/2004 at 04:12 AM
Banned Points: 672 Posts: 318 Joined: 09/Jul/2004
I think Blk Numenorean is right.  PJ wanted Gollum to remain a mystery in FOTR.  All we could see was his eyes and parts of his hand.  For people who haven’t read the books, they would have no idea what was following Frodo and if he was a threat or something.  After TTT, one would wonder how he came to being so maybe PJ decided to show Gollum’s evolution in ROTK.
Ashen Shugar 28/Nov/2004 at 05:06 AM
Linguist of Lothlorien Points: 3348 Posts: 3027 Joined: 27/Aug/2004
I have to agree on this one, they wanted the intro to the third movie to be a surprise and they were keeping it a secret in FotR, his origins I mean and how he came about the Ring. I think that was done well, I do not mind really plus I think if they pushed him in with all the other characters, considering already the complications it would have been too much.
Tînk 28/Nov/2004 at 07:41 AM
Shirriff of the Shire Points: 9309 Posts: 10460 Joined: 24/Nov/2004
I think being introduced to races that aren’t found on earth, and to all of the characters that would play a main part, and the conflict that would be at hand, just adding how Gollum came to be would be really confusing.  Also, I thought they did it because you should see what he is now, then, later on, learn about how it was, how it came to be. 
Lùthien Oronra 28/Nov/2004 at 09:23 AM
Fletcher of Lothlorien Points: 1780 Posts: 1666 Joined: 03/May/2004
I think that it was much better to show Gollum’s Transformation in RotK than FotR or TTT.  It kept up this shroud of mystery which surrounded him, and made it far more entertaining in my opinion!
~Rings 28/Nov/2004 at 10:58 AM
Banned Points: 6206 Posts: 13568 Joined: 07/May/2004
The ring slowly corrupted him over hundreds of years. He was not really a Hobbit in the sense that you are thinking. The hand that grasped the ring from the water was not the hand of Gollum. He was indeed "normal" at one point. The corruption slowly ate at him. I personally like the way he did this in the movie. IUt kept those who do not know the story...curious.
Fiwen 29/Nov/2004 at 09:05 AM
Craftsman of Minas Tirith Points: 1341 Posts: 280 Joined: 05/Sep/2008
The way they gradually built up Gollum’s character was indeed clever, but I still think that the way they did the bit in the Prologue was very sneaky, as it wasn’t even Smeagol’s hand, but Deagol’s. This may have confused some people when they saw the films, so it could have been done better. The fact that is is Deagol’s hand is only revealed in the Return of the King, in the Prologue.
Drachn’yel 29/Nov/2004 at 01:27 PM
Miner of Mordor Points: 936 Posts: 552 Joined: 08/Oct/2004

Yep, good direction and story telling from PJ.  He makes Gollum more important for Return of the King with the addition of the prologue.  It wouldn’t have meant so much in the Fellowship because to the audience that haven’t read the book he remains very much a mystery and unknown quantity.  We get to know him first before revealing his past.

Credit where it’s due - PJ hit the nail with this.

Gwai 29/Nov/2004 at 02:27 PM
Chieftain of the Mark Points: 9888 Posts: 6615 Joined: 11/Nov/2004
I think the film-makers waited to show Gollum until the Return of the King was because during the Fellowship, they were not quite sure what he would look like, yet.  Also, it made a nice introduction into the Return of the King, sort of connecting things a little bit.
~Nieriel~ 01/Dec/2004 at 03:10 AM
Banned Points: 585 Posts: 1632 Joined: 24/Oct/2004
i agree with Searogim, in The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition Gandalf says that Smeagol’s life is a sad sad story, but we only really glimpse Gollum for a second or two, and then in The Two Towers there is Gollum and there is Smeagol, and we dont know if he is really good or not, so there is mystery there.  So i think that they put it in The Return of the King to kinda sum it all up and say that he used to be good, and then he was bad and now the good and the bad are fighting it out inside him, kinda summing it up. that’s just what i think i could be wrong.
Elrahil 01/Dec/2004 at 05:13 AM
Banned Points: 792 Posts: 275 Joined: 28/Nov/2004
It would be too confusing to show so many things for a character that is properly introduced to the audience in the second movie. There is no possible way to link some many footage from Smeagol’s life with the Fellowship and this is why it went to the RotK.
Landy 03/Dec/2004 at 03:30 AM
Warlord of Mordor Points: 10919 Posts: 13761 Joined: 16/Nov/2003
i think they waited to show gollums life because it was not necesarily going to be put in the movies(even though it does tell us a lot and its quite an interesting opening to the rotk even though its not in the books) i think the only reason they did it was to show more of andy serkis however because everybody kept whinghing about how he didnt get any screentime (eh hello we want to see gollum, not some actor who plays him) which i think is just ridiculous as it shows that its focused more on the movies rather than the books.
Eolynn 03/Dec/2004 at 07:30 AM
Banned Points: 319 Posts: 118 Joined: 02/Dec/2004
A hobbit is a creature.
Hades 03/Dec/2004 at 10:45 AM
Banned Points: 1346 Posts: 1265 Joined: 12/Aug/2004
Eolynn, you took the words write out of my mouth

Well, who cares about a gross diaper wearing thing with a handful of hair’s life if he isn’t in the movie except for a few seconds (FOTR)? And in TTT, Gollum;s biggest part had not yet been realized, and it is enough to know what the FOTR prologue has said. Though in ROTK, Gollum’s most important part; falling with the Ring into the deeps of Orodruin. So, naturally, it’d be more relevant for ROTK, where most of Gollum is revealed.
Túriel 05/Dec/2004 at 12:00 PM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 425 Posts: 236 Joined: 11/Apr/2004
I agree with Hades
Hamalas 07/Dec/2004 at 07:49 AM
Horse-groom of the Mark Points: 377 Posts: 235 Joined: 03/Dec/2004

It was also helped to create an element of suspense, which of course was somthing that Peter Jackson would have been pursuing. 

I have no idea what you mean, by saying "he was not a creature when he got the ring" 
can you explain for me please?

Canael 07/Dec/2004 at 08:11 PM
Juvenile of the Mark Points: 294 Posts: 4 Joined: 07/Dec/2004
I think he waited to show gulums life until the third movie because it was more important to know than, when it had no relevance to the movie in the first film. I rea’’y don’t think he should have done that, because I trhink it makes more sense to do it like the books and have his life at the begining instead of at the end, or in the last movie!!
King Thranduil 08/Dec/2004 at 01:57 AM
Archer of Imladris Points: 690 Posts: 451 Joined: 16/Dec/2003
By the way, Fire84, glaldriel is actually wrote as Galadriel.
sssmeagol 09/Dec/2004 at 04:37 PM
Traitor of Mordor Points: 186 Posts: 10 Joined: 05/Jan/2004
I liked that he waited til the third film! It made him more pitiable, and so it made his deterioration into Gollum seem less his fault. Being placed in the third film, the audience had a balance of everything PJ did to make him seem less ’evil’ and more... ’misled.’
Envinyatar 14/Dec/2004 at 08:31 PM
Hasty Ent of Fangorn Points: 2844 Posts: 6683 Joined: 15/Sep/2004
Yeah, because they didn’t show Gollum’s story until the return of the king, it kind would have spoiled knowing what gollum was to those who haven’t readthe books. Quite a shocker to them, yes. hehe. Anyway, I liked the way they kept it a secret. It was a good thing.
Lèŋatĥ 29/Dec/2004 at 10:01 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 1058 Posts: 1135 Joined: 03/Mar/2003
Galadriel said that the ring came toa creature Gollum, because everybody knew him as Gollum the creature. I don’t think that many knew about him being a hobbit-like person once and named Smeagol. And as for not putting the Smeagol-Deagol story in the FotR, I agree that maybe PJ did not want to lose the mystery around Gollum. And I ,for one who had not read the books before the movies, hoped till the end of the Two Towers that Gollum would become good in the end, but if PJ had put the story of how he become evil in the very beginning, I would have never thought this way and a part of the excitement would have been lost for me.
Aisil 30/Dec/2004 at 07:33 AM
Overseer of Erebor Points: 14146 Posts: 17613 Joined: 13/Aug/2004
yes, I agree with many of you. Peter jackson probably want to keep gollum as a mystery for a while. And they didn`t have a clear image of gollum yet and if you see the gollum in fellowship of the ring I`m glad they did this scene of gollum in return of the king as gollum just looked somuch better in rotk that in fotr.
Star Flower 16/Jan/2005 at 07:19 AM
Elder of Erebor Points: 19230 Posts: 21250 Joined: 28/Jun/2003

I have to admit, that a lot of my friends that had not read Lord of the Rings before watching the movie, were confused by Peter Jackson putting this scene in the Return of the King, instead of the Fellowship of the Ring. I personally think that it brought a good build up, and kept the viewers curious, right until the end. The way PJ introduced it was… interesting…so I thought. ^_^