Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum (2026)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_for_Gollum#:~:text=The film is set in,a quest to find Gollum.


8pk4no.gif

How to pull off a no budget CGI Gollum, stick him in a sack :lol

Curious the short film was just pulled. After quietly being there for 15 years, likely suddenly had thousands of eyes on it.
Wonder if they all of a sudden got a cease and desist?
Trailer is still there.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't really have minded Arwen, had they not stripped Frodo of one of his character defining moments (turning to face the combined might of the Nazgul) at the river so they could give that bit to her. Watching her cry over Frodo, when we don't even know who she is or why she should care about one hobbit... and losing Frodo's inner strength... it was so weird a choice.

In general, those movies did Frodo a huge disservice in favor of trying to bolster other characters.

Beautifully filmed though.
IMO both Denethor - who to me comes off loony as compared to the book depiction (powerful, but mad...) and the handling of Faramir :stake - who in the book was subtle, intelligent and a favorite of mine (and didn't take *&^% from his father) and for that matter Aragorn at times, who seemed to need the woman behind the man....

I get why Jackson did what he did; I just don't agree with it. But there's so much magnificence.

IMO the Hobbit was much harder to pull off - not that much material to work with, really; having to move from whimsical to dramatic and horrible and then whimsical again. I appreciate what was done with all 6 films in spite of - well, things I wouldn't have done. Maybe it's a cultural difference too; things that are funny in New Zealand to me aren't.
 
The short time constraints they gave him and therefore the crew to produce these massive movies. The ultimatum/threat that if he didn't direct, they would get someone else AND they wouldn't film in New Zealand, but instead a studio backlot.

He initially signed on for just 1 movie, then they expanded it to 2 and then right before the first one released, the studio decided to make it into a trilogy to get more money. The studio had to share profits for the first movie with all the other studios/production companies that had a hand in the rights to The Hobbit, but they were for only one movie. So WB wanted to get their share and then some, therefore expanded first to two movies so they would get all the profits from the second, but then wanted more money and expanded to 3 movies. So, the first movie had to be re-edited right before release to end differently than originally intended.

No one was ever ready when the cast arrived to shoot their scenes b/c things were constantly changing whether that was from Peter or the studio. Sometimes the cast would show up and they would just decide not to shoot them that day and instead do something else. From what I remember, they said the main Hobbits had no stunt doubles (only body doubles for certain scenes) which was challenging for some of the older cast members when it came to doing stunts.

After the success of the Hunger Games, the studio wanted their own bow and arrow beauty which is why Tauriel was created. Had nothing to do with Peter apparently.

Lots of other stuff that I'm not remembering. It's a great little documentary though if you can catch it. It was on the channel Vice. They have other ones in the series as well for Batman, Star Wars, James Bond and even The Fast and the Furious :lol
I'd add there were some brutal conditions in the prosthetics - think it's in the Chronicles books or appendices. Like the Goblin King scene where people got so overheated in the prosthetics they were throwing up into buckets.

Richard Armitage told Graham McTavish "no one will ever know what they went through". I gather that some improvements to the costumes were made as things went along (making them lighter). (But at least real leatherwork, metalwork, glass blowing etc. was done)

For me, like LOTR, film Thorin remains a favorite of mine; great performances; some beautifully done locations like Laketown with all the architecture; Erebor, Thranduil, Smaug IMO is the best dragon ever done on screen.

The Hunt for More Money
I don't care; nobody seems to have the sense of aesthetic that Jackson has. I'm still reeling from Rings of Power. :stake . It's not that one day, no-one else in the world will ever be able to do a great version of Middle Earth. Just not protegees of J. Abrams and his magic boxes.

Like, both in LOTR and the Hobbit, we get these great bridging shots so we see these companies slogging along on their respective journeys. In ROP apparently teleporting - arriving at your destination salon fresh - is a thing.:slap
 
Last edited:
IMO both Denethor - who to me comes off loony as compared to the book depiction (powerful, but mad...) and the handling of Faramir :stake - who in the book was subtle, intelligent and a favorite of mine (and didn't take *&^% from his father) and for that matter Aragorn at times, who seemed to need the woman behind the man....

I get why Jackson did what he did; I just don't agree with it. But there's so much magnificence.

IMO the Hobbit was much harder to pull off - not that much material to work with, really; having to move from whimsical to dramatic and horrible and then whimsical again. I appreciate what was done with all 6 films in spite of - well, things I wouldn't have done. Maybe it's a cultural difference too; things that are funny in New Zealand to me aren't.
Agreed on those points, certainly. Including the "magnificence" comment. there truly was.

I liked the first 1 1/2 Hobbit films - not that there weren't problems. The escape from the goblins was over the top and the barrel riding scene was absurd. I really don't even mind splitting into three movies. The conceit that these were the true adventures Bilbo had that prompted him to write his own children's adventure version of his story was interesting. Unpopular opinion, but Radagast for me was great. Seeing the White Council and Gandalf's behind the scene adventures? Yes. More of that please.

But... so much time spent on Tauriel, Legolas, Alfred, etc... while the dwarves got so little attention. The Azog storyline was dry. The connection to the Necromancer a bit to heavy handed. Some great bits overall though. Bilbo had a strength to him as a protagonist that Frodo really lacked, and in that way I enjoyed the interpretation of the titular Hobbit more than his nephew.
 
They made something special with the LOTR trilogy. They should have stopped after ROTK. Last time they tried to repeat that success, well we know how that turned out.
 
Agreed on those points, certainly. Including the "magnificence" comment. there truly was.

I liked the first 1 1/2 Hobbit films - not that there weren't problems. The escape from the goblins was over the top and the barrel riding scene was absurd. I really don't even mind splitting into three movies. The conceit that these were the true adventures Bilbo had that prompted him to write his own children's adventure version of his story was interesting. Unpopular opinion, but Radagast for me was great. Seeing the White Council and Gandalf's behind the scene adventures? Yes. More of that please.

But... so much time spent on Tauriel, Legolas, Alfred, etc... while the dwarves got so little attention. The Azog storyline was dry. The connection to the Necromancer a bit to heavy handed. Some great bits overall though. Bilbo had a strength to him as a protagonist that Frodo really lacked, and in that way I enjoyed the interpretation of the titular Hobbit more than his nephew.
:exactly:(y)

Yep. Was pretty disappointed with Jackson and what seems to be "elf love"; when in AUJ, there was a spectacular aesthetic, culture, and language developed (including dignified and hairy dwarf women).

On the other hand there was Radagast (a portrayal that really grew on me), Thorin's flickering madness; the fiesty Bilbo (Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage killed it); the beauty of Gandalf and Galadriel talking together (I bought WETA's Galadriel statue😁); the joy of seeing Ian McKellen doing the opening Bag End lines was priceless; Lee Pace stunning as Thranduil; Dain, etc. along with some spectacular landscapes like the High Fells.

And there's treatments in LOTR like Faramir dragging Frodo back to his father for the Ring that don't go over well with me.:pfft:Still, there are scenes like the lighting of the beacons and Helm's Deep...

LOL I've already resigned myself to LOTS of ELVES if this Gollum movie actually gets made:lol. TBH it's probably a sure fire hit. Serkus is ridiculously talented; Jackson will be on hand; and while not everyone was unhappy with ROP to me it felt - well, like a typical Abrams film. Superficial, not even costumes to get excited about; or landscapes - or much of anything really. Elves that looked more like they should be coffee barristas. :stake

So this will be like a balm to a lot of ME fans IMO😁. Again, Peter Jackson probably isn't the only director who can do epic fantasy well (I wouldn't mind having Ridley Scott taking a crack at Middle Earth). And Jackson's team can actually write dialogue that doesn't put me to sleep or is just cringe.
 
I see WB is off to a great start with LOTR fans already...
So long as they recast Gandalf as a wise and stunning african trans woman, and Aragorn a fierce lesbian warrior, it should be fine.
Though Gollum can stay the same as the "new" PC Gandalf and Aragorn will no doubt remind Gollum, he always represented the toxic colonialist decrepitude of straight white maleness. :lol
8psqht.gif


LOL kidding, Sirkis will likely want to stick to the source material, yet to extend it into a full film (or 2)? , they are going to have to shamelessly pad it and pull so much out their a**, it'll turn many off.
 
Last edited:
So long as they recast Gandalf as a wise and stunning african trans woman, and Aragorn a fierce lesbian warrior, it should be fine.
Though Gollum can stay the same as the "new" Gandalf and Aragorn will no doubt remind him, he always represented the toxic colonialist decrepitude of straight white maleness. :lol
8psqht.gif

How did you know😁? Gollum will receive succor from a kindly woman of the Harad as he journeys towards Mordor, whose kindness and beauty and forgiveness nearly succeeds in bringing curing Gollum of his desire for the Precious (and there's more than a hint that this is one of the mysterious blue wizards as she seems all-powerful). This successfully undermines Frodo's emotional arc and nobility with Gollum as a bonus!

Gollum learns from the Harad that those nasty Men of the West (and elves) are keeping the Harad from having more stuff; which he empathizes with. Aragorn, with a party of androgynous elves, has a skirmish with the Harad tribe and the blue wizard lady Harad chieftan female tribal leader calls Aragorn a colonizer and dies, turning into a singing stone that cries "Wakanda Forever" when the winds are strongest. (In years to come, there is much arguing among the Harad as to what this means; but eventually is taken up as a battle cry in future conflicts.)

Gollum's fate is sealed by her fall; and he flees to Mordor during the rout (imitating Merry and Pippin's escape as another bonus, since Hollywood no longer does anything original) where he is captured and tortured; successfully wiping any memory of this wondrous leader from his mind.

The film receives wide praise for its sensitive treatment of Gollum and his almost-redemption; and multi-ethnic portrayal of characters in key roles including Galadriel the tribal leader, and the scene where Aragorn is sobbing "what's it all about, really?" Unfortunately an outraged Middle Earth audience takes umbrage at this fan fiction, and decides to spend its theater budget on "John Wick - The Final Resurrection" instead.:monkey3
 
If they want this to be part of the existing 6 movie franchise, then good luck. It will be so disconnected because they have to recast Aragorn, Gandalf and pretty much everybody from the original movies.

Absolutely no interest in that kind of inbetween storyline. Why not go back further in time? Is it because Amazon holds those rights?
 
If they want this to be part of the existing 6 movie franchise, then good luck. It will be so disconnected because they have to recast Aragorn, Gandalf and pretty much everybody from the original movies.

Absolutely no interest in that kind of inbetween storyline. Why not go back further in time? Is it because Amazon holds those rights?
Probably.

Tho I don't mind the recasting; IMO de-aging tech doesn't work as well as media producers think it does.

On the other hand, I still think focusing on the wars in the North - which even gets alluded to in LOTR - would be more interesting. Men and elves and dwarves against orcs and wargs.
 
Probably.

Tho I don't mind the recasting; IMO de-aging tech doesn't work as well as media producers think it does.

On the other hand, I still think focusing on the wars in the North - which even gets alluded to in LOTR - would be more interesting. Men and elves and dwarves against orcs and wargs.
I hate recasting. Just make this a different continuity. I can't think of a single recast that's ever successfully made it feel like the same character.

Unless they want to portray a significantly younger version of the charaacters.
 
Back
Top