New York Times:

The following is truly the most stupid example of SW bashing. The "New York Times" decided to compare Jar-Jar from SW with Gollum from LOTR:

"Jar Jar vs. Gollum: Round 2
Wed, Dec 18, 02 09:35:41 AM EST


The NY Times reports on the new Lord of the Rings movie with an inevitable comparison of Jar Jar and Gollum:
Gollum is divided within himself; he is an infantilized wreck who wants to please and befriend the hobbits. But he is also a hissing, bitter child-man whose paranoia keeps him breathing, and plotting. Gollum is a computer-generated creation and as fully realized a character as can be found in "Towers" ? perhaps the most fully realized. (He has been dropped into the movie more effectively than George Lucas crammed Jar Jar Binks into his recent "Star Wars" addenda.) With the voice of Andy Serkis, whose movements were also copied by the animators, Gollum is torn by his nature, and Mr. Jackson allows him to be conflicted in a way none of the other characters in the film are.

This is partially because "Towers" is more or less a bridge to the finale of the "Rings" trilogy due a year from now, though this picture is one of the most accomplished holding actions ever."


Now, I ask you - what the hell does Jar-Jar and Gollum have in common? I didn't realize that the N.Y. Times were so desperate to jump on the SW-bashing bandwagon and use these two characters as examples on why LOTR is "superior" to SW.

Stupidity at its height!

 

Of course they're not going to compare Gollum to a superior CG character, like Yoda.

 

Say that again!!!!

 

God forbid they actually make a fair comparison in CG characters instead of purposely picking out the least successful CG character.

Watto, Yoda, Dexter.

Have they been forgotten, or purposely ignored? I choose the second one.

Just my opinion of course.

 

Just got back from TTT, and, I'm sorry, but Gollum beats out Jar-Jar, Yoda, and that house elf from Harry Potter hands down.

I loved Yoda in AOTC, but Gollum is fantastic in TTT and if I had to vote for an Oscar for best "digital" actor, it would have to go to Gollum.

 

This site is being invaded by LOTR trolls.

 

I just saw The Two Towers 2 hours ago and I loved it.

Gollum was far better than Jar Jar in the respect that the character actually contributed efficiently to the story, and most of all it actually seemed like he was grabbing the characters, unlike Jar Jar, with whom you'd often see the actors talking to his chin.

Graphically I think Jar Jar seemed more realistic, ie he looked like a living creature.

I do think though that overall Gollum is far better.

 

Of course Gollum is better than Jar-Jar! Jar-Jar is a comic relief character! What did you expect!

Apparently, the N.Y. Times forgot this, the morons!

 

Why do you guys care so much what the media says about SW? Who cares what they think, all that matters is that you like it. It's not like their criticism is hurting sales or anything, SW contiues to make over $300 million each movie at the box office. Who cares if Gollum is more realistic than Jar Jar, he's supposed to be.

 

I have to say that this is one of the most pitiful examples of SW bashing I have ever had the displeasure of enountering. Critics always say that LOTR is better than SW, and while I liked the first installment of the LOTR trilogy and am certain I will like the second two as well, in my mind it is not as good as SW. But that is just my opinion. However, comparing Gollum to Jar-Jar is pretty unfair in my mind. Tolkien wrote the entire story that Peter Jackson is working with, and while Jackson has done a tremendous job in making the books come to life on the movie screen, he himself has not added any significant amount of his own origninality to his movies' storylines. Am I saying he should have? Of course not. I am of the opinion that the closer Jackson stays to the books, the better. However, saying that Gollum, a character that was created a long time before the TT movie came out is better than one of Lucas' original creations is in my mind an unjust comparison. Maybe Gollum truly is the better character, but he was created in a book a heck of a longer time before Jar-Jar (or CGI for that matter) was ever conceived. Jackson took Tolkien's view of Gollum and tried to put it on the silver screen is the best possible way he could. However, to say that Jackson's Gollum is better than Lucas' Jar-Jar is unfair, because Gollum is not Jackon's original creation.


But I digress

 

*sighs*
When will my two great story loves stop being pitted against each other?
Though Gollum did seem more real and fleashed out!

 

And yet, people are still comparing Jar-Jar and Gollum. Why bother? Other than being CGI creations, they have nothing in common.

Frankly, I would compare Jar-Jar with Pippin and to be honest, I would not know who was the bigger clutz.

 

However, to say that Jackson's Gollum is better than Lucas' Jar-Jar is unfair, because Gollum is not Jackon's original creation.

Excellent point. This could actually apply to the entire LOTR vs. SW argument. Lucas had to come up with everything on his own. All Jackson had to to was read three books and hire some artists draw what he read. Lucas had to use more imagination, originality and independent storytelling than Jackson ever will with LOTR. This is the point just about all critics somehow miss, and why I will continue to give them zero credibility when trying to compare the franchises.

 

Somebody please lock this stupid LOTR bashing thread, it has nothing to do with SW.

 

I'm not bashing LOTR. I loved FOTR. And I'm sure that I will love TTT. But I also love the SW saga, both PT and OT. And I am bashing this constant negativity toward one saga or the other. Since SW seems to be the main victim by comparing it to LOTR, I guess I can say that I'm bashing this ridiculous SW backlash, one example coming from "The New York Times".

 

IMHO, I just saw the movie. The Gollum/Jar Jar comparison came instantly to my mind just because, unlike other CGI chars mentioned, they are the "traveling companions" in the story and are kinda similar in that aspect.\

I do think that Gollum is the best realized CGI char I have ever seen. His acting is superb, just the range of acting is enough to make it one of the best CGI chars out there. Those dual scenes where chilling and touching at the same time.

The CG itself is amazing. He is a fully believable character that transends CG to become, in my head, real. The only other CGI I've seen that comes even close is AOTC Yoda.

 

I haven't seen TTT yet, but I am looking forward to seeing Gollum, he is one of my favorite characters in the books. However, I am sick and tired of all the SW bashing that these critics just love to do. A critic here in Detroit called LOTR the greatest fantasy movie epic ever! It may be equal to the OT but I don't see how it can surpass it. Plus, Star Wars is George's original concept from beginning to end...I wonder what Tolkien would think of his books in film. There is so much cut out...But comparing Jar-Jar to Gollum...puhleeze. I would like to think if there was no Jar-Jar and the ILM technology that produced him there would be no Gollum or not as near to real as this Gollum is. George and ILM has always been on the cutting edge of visual effects...

 

This is not bashing, guys. It is a comparison of the quality of 2 digitally rendered characters in 2 different movies.

 

It is a bit unfair to compare 1999's TPM Jar Jar to 2002's Gollum from the Two Towers. In 3 years CGI tech has improved greatly! IF they are comparing gollum to Jar Jar from AOTC, on what basis are they doing that? Jar Jar was only in the movie for 10 minutes. Rather compare Gollum to Yoda or one of the other CGI creatures in AOTC then. In both TPM and ATOC Jar Jar had little to no interaction with any human actors, while Gollum was much more physical - the reason? Jar Jar didn't need to be wrestled, captured and fought by real actors, Gollum did. Please - compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

 

As much as it would probably help to restore peace and order to this board (and, really, the internet as a whole at this point) the "SW vs. LOTR" bit isn't going to go away any time soon.

The plain fact of the matter is, the two franchises have an incredible amount in common in their basis (reworked amalgams of various mythological standards) execution (film trilogies made by jolly bearded guys) and genre, and thus they will be compared no matter what. It's going to happen.

That's not to say this should become the "main" topic of this board (quite the contrary, I think) but, let's face it... much like the sun, it's just going to keep coming up.

Thus, perhaps it'd be better, rather than demanding thread-deletions or mentally dividing up whole groups of posters into "bashers" or "gushers;" to instead take the time and formulate rational, thoughful, objective responses to the subject so that when it comes up it can be as civil a part of the discourse as anything else?

Just a thought.

 

Yes we could do that, but this is a SW board, not a LOTR board. There are forums for LOTR fans. I know, I have been there because I like LOTR. The problem is that these threads ALWAYS turn into arguments about which movie is better, ALWAYS. So either they should make a specific board for LOTR vs. SW discussions or they should delete all posts that have anything at all to do with LOTR.

 

I just had to weigh in on this one.

My FX partner and I just got back from TTT, and as one would expect, we - mainly he, was paying particular attention to the effects overall, especially Gollum. Naturally, I wanted to know what he thought. His observation was that Jar-Jar was technically superior to the Gollum character (read: compostiing, movement, intergration) but Gollum displayed better "character animation"

Agreeing with him; I would liken this to the difference between "The Jungle Book" and "Rocky and Bullwinkle" The animation on the Disney film is far superior to the 2s and 4s of R&B, but the character writing is so great that you overlook the animation and just get sucked into the story.

For my part, I though Gollum was a wonderful character, but at no time did I not think he wasn't CG. That having been said, I didn't care CG or Real Actor, they're all fake no matter who or what they are, what's important is that they service the story and entertain you (or at least make you feel like you got your $8.00 worth)

And guys no amount of bashing or cheering or arguing on iether side is going to disway anyone into thinking one movie was greater, or better than the other. Some people like both, some people hate both, and some people think one sucked while another didn't. All this protesting of "My film can beat up your film." is more than a little disheartening to me, and at times down-right disturbing. We're not attacking religions for god (oops) goodness sake. They're movies! They're meant to entertain, inspire, prevoke (and arouse?) us for a few hours. They're not something inwhich to build a whole career or life around...okay, bad example on my part as I've done just that, but you get my meaning. (hopefully)

 

weezyslob: Calm down, there's no need to be so defensive. this thread is not a bashing thread for anything. It's a comparison of two different CG characters from two different films, one of which is a Star Wars movie and citing an article from a paper. It's allowed to be here and it will be fine everyone sticks to the topic.

The first thing that sprang to my mind was exactly what onlyOnekenobi mentioned above: Binks = '99, Gollum = '02. You can't compare these character on a level, IMO. It's like comparing Eisenstein's baby-down-the-stairs shot in "Battleship Potempkin" with De Palma's baby-down-the-stairs shot in "The Untouchables". Made decades apart and of course the increased level of technology makes the latter look better but the former is the template, the trend setter.

 

After seeeing Gollum I realize this is the future of cgi created actors.He looks real,his flesh is transparent ,you can see his muscles and bones moving underneath his skin.His expresions are flawless and his eyes man his eyes.The way he moves in his environment is flawlees.Most cgi characters look like they are floating and not really connected to the ground,Gollum is 98% perfect.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to bash the SW or the LOTR saga. I love both sagas. I consider both brilliant.

What has pissed me off is this constant bashing of one saga, using the other as an example. And it really bothers me that the New York Times would sink to such levels to indulge in what looks like to me is a stupid exercise in SW-bashing.