January 10, 2002

NOT MARRIOT writes: "I have to put in my two cents regarding your reader who is troubled by the notion that Andy Serkis might be nominated for an Oscar. In all of the movies I saw last year, Gollum is, without a doubt, one of the best drawn (in both the emotional and graphic senses of the term) and fully realized characters that walked around among the shadows.

From what I understand, Gollum's movements and facial expressions were done by the actor, the voice is without a doubt the actor's, and the pathos inherent in the character would have been impossible to create if it weren't for Andy Serkis' work. I hate to bring up the old saw about Jar Jar, but what, ultimately is the difference between these two characters is the writing and the acting behind them. This is a bold new step for an actor to take, and it also makes a point about CG characters in movies -- if there isn't a good performer providing inspiration for the pixels, then the character isn't a character, it's a cartoon. Andy Serkis made a character ... and therefore, he deserves any consideration he's currently getting in regards to taking a golden boy home in a couple of months. CG will not be the death of actors, it is a new challenge for them, and, frankly, anything that puts the fear of god into an actor can only be a good thing. If there's a possibility they could be CG-ed out of a movie in the future, then maybe they'll have more respect for the writers they so carelessly rewrite to turn a story into a vehicle.

What am I looking forward to in 2003? From my above comments, to say Return of the King would be too obvious -- so let's throw in The Hulk, because I have a feeling that a mean, green, Ang Lee fighting machine will be loads of fun, fun, fun! And maybe some time this year Spider will finally come to Chicago, gol-darn-it!"

E ME: What are you most anxious to see next year that isn't about a ring or a superhero?