Talk:Gollum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gollum article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles. Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Mental/psychological state 2 Gollum's betrayal 3 Gollum the Stalker 4 Action Figure 5 Broken Bridge 6 Sméagol picture? 7 Age of Gollum 8 The Time Gollum Spent Searching for the Ring 9 The book ending vs. the movie ending 10 Multiple pics 11 Smeagol vs. Gollum 12 Cognate 13 Is this right? 14 Easter Egg... 15 Uldrolic Hobbit? 16 Appearance 17 Gollum's Third Personality 18 Characteristics 19 Story-telling 20 Other Gollums in fiction (the REAL disambiguation) 21 "References in other movies & games" section 22 Move proposal 23 Fictional cannibals? 24 Gallery 25 Britains got Talent 2008 26 gollum, possibly from the yiddish "Golem?"

[edit] Mental/psychological state

I'm genuinely surprised that there's nothing covering his mental and psychological condition in any depth. Gollum obviously exhibits multiple personality disorder, yet there's really nothing stating how tha disorder was viewed at the time, or how victims and doctors treat Gollum's portrayal in either the books or the movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe routt (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gollum's betrayal

In the following: In The Lord of the Rings, Gollum reappears searching for the Ring and betrays the Fellowship to a band of Orcs. (This is purely conjectural: Gollum had been following the Fellowship down the River Anduin, but there is no textual indication that the Orc attack near the Falls of Rauros was a result of any betrayal on his part; both Sauron and Saruman had forces on both sides of the river, and Gollum was unlikely to deliver the Ring to forces who would make sure he could never recover it)

I deleted the note. It should be here, not in the article. -- Zoe

I'm going to delete the whole thing -- pure speculation. It doesn't say that Gollum flew in on a B52 either, so maybe we should mention that possibility! ;-) -- Tarquin 09:16 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Gollum the Stalker

Did Gollum follow the Fellowship through Lórien? It seems unlikely. Even if he managed to elude the Elven archers, surely Galadriel would have perceived him with the power of Nenya. Much more likely that he went around.

He did, in fact. In the past he had always strayed around it, but the lure of the Ring was too strong for him, and he entered.

[edit] Action Figure

Is the action figure photo a good illustration for this (and Aragorn, Legolas)? I don't like it too much... Ausir 10:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't like them very much as well.. even screen captures from the movies might not be a very good idea, many fans has their own versions of the characters in their minds, so the character pages for middle-earth characters should stay moviepictureless IMHO. --Conti|✉ 22:24, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Gollum had been a prisoner of the Elves, and had in fact escaped. He was in Lorien in the book, and was seen climbing the trunk of the trees where the fellowship lay sleeping before being led to Galadriel days later. Someone editing these pages really needs to read the BOOK rather than just watch the movies. They are COMPLETELY different. (Understandably as the movie would have been about 22 hours long if it followed the book exactly).

ALSO... Shelob's Lair in the BOOK happened during The Two Towers, Not Return of the King, and someone needs to read the BOOK ending of Gollum rather than spewing the ending of the movie.

THANKS!69.204.126.223 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Jen

[edit] Broken Bridge

It is mentioned in the text that it is unknown how Gollum crossed the chasm after the Bridge of Khazad-dŭm was broken. However, we later see that Orks are able to exit Moria, perhaps by means of the large blocks that we saw trolls bringing to bridge another chasm in the same chamber. Gollum most possibly exited Moria the same way. What do you think? --Bill the Greek 07:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sméagol picture?

Should we also have a picture of Andy Serkis as Sméagol? Seeing as we are dealing with two characters here, in a fashion.--DooMDrat 06:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

-We should also have a picture of Serkis as Gollum as to not confuse poor wikipedians. Hoyohoyogold 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Gollum

The article says that Gollum was 33 years old when he got the Ring. Can anybody provide a reference for this claim? I don't see how we could know that. Eric119 20:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As usual, the movie makers decided to fill in some perceived gaps. Unlike Legolas' age this one makes a bit of sense, though. Since 33 is the age a Shire Hobbit becomes officially an adult, and Sméagol "found" the Ring on his birthday — a birthday he got gifts — they evidently decided that this day was Sméagol's 33rd birthday. [1]. However they forgot a) Sméagol was not a Shire Hobbit, but a Stoor, b) we know that the Rhovanion Stoors received, and did not gave gifts on their birthdays (UT, letters, HoMe), and c) the date T.A. 2463 when the Ring was found is an approximate, not a precise date. Ergo, movie info, not book info.

-- Jordi·✆ 00:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Took the above out, it was added again. In short, don't use movie websites as a reference for book sections. :-P Uthanc 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Time Gollum Spent Searching for the Ring

I'm changing "and he pursued it for many years after he lost it." to "and he pursued it for seventy-six years after he lost it." Because, correct my number if I’m wrong: Bilbo had the Ring for 60 years before he left it to Frodo, Frodo delayed 15 years before setting out on the Quest, the Quest lasted "13 months to the day" (According to the movie version of The Return of the King); that makes 60+15+1=76

There should probably be a note that the Ring's power must have continued to sustain him after he lost it, or he would have died the minute it abandoned him in the cave, being over 500 years old at the time.

[edit] The book ending vs. the movie ending

I felt that the description of the ending was a bit vague. As I had understood the book, the section where Gollum took one last swing at Frodo, on the hillside, was critical because Frodo bound Gollum by the ring to fall into Mount Doom himself if he attacked him again. That Gollum did so only after he got the Ring proved fortuitous, but Gollum was having a hot bath either way the moment he attacked Frodo. The movie went in an entirely different direction, of course, with Frodo fighting back and such, but I felt that the critical point of the book was that the ring's treachery towards Gollum ironically destroyed it, too.

I can post references later, but I don't have the book in front of me just now. I tried to edit it in myself, but it read awkwardly since the current entry doesn't really discuss the differences between the book and the movie through the narrative and I don't want to rewrite it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.133.250 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, we should put something in the adaptions section since the movie takes a much lighter turn with some pretty standard heroics to make Frodo more of a conventional "hero" rather than the books darker ending in which the ring destroys Gollum showing its own uncontrollability and giving no cheap redmeption to Frodo allowing to remain a more complex character (this modern sugarcoating also seen in the removal of "Scouring of the Shire" chapter in all versions of the film giving the Shire a positive future rather than being mangled by industry and then cursed to barrenness by Saruman's dying moments) AKLR 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple pics

There are some duplicate pics in this article; are they really necessary? I mean, maybe we can get another pic of Gollum, as using it twice seems... not smart. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smeagol vs. Gollum

Ignoring the movie, as it is full of innacurate statments. I think that we should split the article in to one for Smeagol and Gollum, where the early history of how "they" got the ring belonging to smeagol, Bilbo getting the ring going to Gollum, the journey with Frodo being split accordingly. It would require some work, but I think it would be better then having one article for both of them. nn False Prophet 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It should remain one article, but it does need some work. -- Jordi·✆ 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this page should be moved to Smeagol? Gollum is his 'nickname'! His actual name is Smeagol - am I right or am I right? On another note, I have found that Smeagol is a great name for a cat (no joke)!Undoubtedly0 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, I removed your merge tag from the article and replaced it with the {{move}} tag. I agree that the page should be moved to Smeagol, because that is the character's original name. I've also noted this discussion at the bottom of this page, and I will put in a request at WP:RM. Please discuss. Bry9000 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reviewing the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME, I am persuaded to change my mind. See my comments under "Move proposal," below. Bry9000 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cognate

the Trah- stem in Trahald and Trâgu is thus a cognate of the Germanic stem present in both Sméagol and Smaug (with a meaning of squeezing through a hole.)

Is this paragraph seriously suggesting that Westron and Germanic share a common ancestor? The Wednesday Island 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What is intended here is that the Westron stem trah- is related to the Germanic stem smug-. As for Westron and Germanic sharing a common ancestor, this was the case at least at one point in Tolkien's ideas: Taliska was supposed to be a proto-Gothic. -- Jordi·✆ 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this right?

• It is hinted in "The Hobbit" that Gollum had stolen and devoured human infants from unguarded households at times, during the years after his ostracization from his village, but this is never mentioned in Peter Jackson's movie adaptions, merely his admition that orcs taste bad, in "The Return of the King". This was a modification of a passage in "The Hobbit", where Gollum recalls once stumbling upon, smothering and eating an orc (goblin) infant in the tunnels under the Misty Mountains.

At least the orc-eating is right... Uthanc 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

why is there not as single picture of gollum as he was potrayed through most of lord of the rings? There is only the pre-gollum pic.

[edit] Easter Egg...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the easter egg (for the MTV Movie Awards) is only available in the Extended Edition of TTT, isn't it?

And what is this line...

"When taking his prize for the MTV Award, Gollum says 'pithat' at the very end."

...Doing in the External links section?

Vicco Lizcano 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uldrolic Hobbit?

In the infobox, Gollum's race is described as being an "Uldrolic Hobbit". Okay, what exactly is an Uldrolic Hobbit supposed to be? Not only am I unable to find any mention of such a race of Hobbits in any of the articles here, but I also did a Google search for the word "Uldrolic" and I only got one match: This article. So yeah, I'm beginning to think that someone just made that word up or something. Any second opinions here? –Nahald 07:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know a bit about Tolkien, and I've never heard that term before either, so I've removed it, since it sounds pretty iffy to me too. If someone knows where "Uldrolic" comes from and can give a citation for it, it can be restored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance

Article says "Shelob, an Orc from Lord of the Rings"

Someone needs to correct this: Shelob is NOT an Orc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.211.228.154 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I fixed it, although you could have done it too.--CyberGhostface 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gollum's Third Personality

There is no discussion on the third personality which is shown in the movie. The treacherous lady persona which asks Gollum to lead them "to her"... and "she is always hungry.. she needs to feed".

-Anoop

I think this is a reference to Shelob. 139.230.245.21 08:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the spider, not a 3rd personality. --JT 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics

The statement: "He is also not above cannibalism, threatening to kill and eat Bilbo in The Hobbit," is not entirely accurate. Although of hobbit roots, Gollum is not strictly a hobbit (more a Stoor, an early hobbit). So eating Bilbo wouldn't make him a cannibal, strictly.139.230.245.21 08:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A 'stoor' is a surname - I'm sure he once was a hobbit.87.102.5.137 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story-telling

Am I the only one that thinks the "Literature" section is over-long and overly-detailed. It seems to get into quite a bit of what I would term "story-telling" as opposed to simply explaining the significance of the character along with a few salient details. --Justanother 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Gollums in fiction (the REAL disambiguation)

I added a note about it, and it really should be further investigated. Tolkien's Smeagol isn't the only gollum in fiction. Frank Herbert's "Dune" series also has a gollum, the reconstituted Duncan Idaho. The characters refer to him/it as a gollum before they have any knowledge of its multiple personalities. I believe I may have read of another gollum or two in years past as well.

We really need to get to the truth of this, not just cite the most famous one and consider it another name that Smeagol goes by. --JT 06:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As further proof, I'm including this post, also made on the Duncan Idaho talk page: The terms are similar enough to be the same, singular and plural. Those similarities should not be offhandedly dismissed.

We find that golem, a slightly different spelling than Tolkien used, is, (from Jewish folklore) an artificially created human being that is given life by supernatural means, a figure artificially constructed in the form of a human being and endowed with life.

The correlation is plain... and makes Duncan Idaho and Smeagol cousins.:) --JT 06:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on the Lord of the Rings Character not the Jewish Golem, nor a character from Dune, that should go into disambiguation Carl Sixsmith 07:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. this bit

Carl Sixsmith

Carl, in this case I have to disagree, rather strongly. We're talking about spelling differences ONLY, and "gollum" wasn't his name, it was a description of what he, Smeagol, was. In fact, THIS gollum belongs as a disambiguation, linked to Smeagol and LOTR. Rather than getting into a Corrections war with you, I'm going to ask you to consider what I'm pointing out and get back with me. --JT 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, in the LOTR, 'Gollum' was the name of the stoor Smeagol for 500 years, it was based on the coughing/gurgling noise he made in his throat, given to him by the people of his village and bears no relationship to Golem's in Jewish literature. Plus Gollum is how he is known to people who have both read and not read the Lord of The Rings, Gandalf for instance is known as Gandalf, but that is only his name in one area of middle earth, and his earliest known name is Olorîn, I don't think anyone would consider renaming that article. If the disambiguation belongs anywhere then it would be under in the article Golem rather than here. I think we should open this discussion up a bit though rather than just us two arguing over it :-) Carl Sixsmith

I generally agree that other input would be welcome, but only from an objective standpoint. Let's face it, some folks get rather protective/possessive of LOTR. What I'm bringing up, really, is that a golem is not original to Tolkien OR Herbert. Tolkien most certainly meant to reference the golem concept, or he'd have chosen another word and/or employed a MUCH more different spelling. In both Herbert and Tolkien's uses of the term (I'm equating them all now, writing off the distinctions as merely differences in spelling, owing to that the spellings are all lose, as would be an Anglicization from another language,) we find an altered character, one which has undergone a rather extreme metamorph, and this (cocoon) is the root of the term golem. It is that commonality upon which I base my argument. --JT 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish golem is a animated clay statue. Gollum (really the only fictional character named "Gollum") is a creature of flesh and blood, a member of a different human species if you will; a normal creature turned abnormal - given prolonged life thanks to his ring. In Dune gholas are clones. Beyond some sort of "unnatural" life (not established in the original, pre-writing-of-LOTR Hobbit for Gollum, since his ring wasn't the One Ring yet) and similar names, are there really substantial connections? Are these? Gollum has nothing else in common with the others. Also you'd need references before putting these connections in articles. Uthanc (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "References in other movies & games" section

What in the world is an "exactly stressed personality"? -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

[edit] Fictional cannibals?

What does everyone else think? He threatens to eat Bilbo, after all... Not050 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Not050

[edit] Gallery

It is a breach of fair-use policy to have a gallery of non-free images in this article. Sadly, I've had to remove them. I suggest consensus is reached here for a minimal use which does not breach WP:NFCC#8. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they're back, in much the same format. It's not the gallery itself, it's the fair use criteria that have to be satisfied, and at present, they breach this because they are not necessarily referred to in the text. They need to go unless they are, and justifiably. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Andy serkis one should definitely stay, and after that, maybe the cartoons. I'm not too sure about the comic or play one though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Middle-earth Wikiproject held (holds) that non-free images in some Tolkien articles are justified because there are no other alternatives to illustrate iterations of characters in particular adaptations. They're not just being used to illustrate the articles. See here for the beginnings of this standard, originally made concerning infoboxes. Feel free to correct, if necessary. Also it wouldn't be fair to just give the spotlight to one version, say Jackson's (part of the reason why the above ruling was made), so it would be better to more than one adaptation image on articles.

Rodhullandemu, are you referring to "[the image must] significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? How much is "significant"? No doubt images would help people. Also, what do you mean by "not necessarily referred to in the text"? The adaptations are all mentioned in the article.

The test of fair-use is whether it is necessary to assist the user's understanding of the article and goes beyond being "merely decorative". If there were a section "Depictions of Gollum" (and, er, there may be), the images would validly replace text. As it was, a chunk of images, not aligned to article text, breaches fair-use because it's difficult to see how they aid the reader's understanding. They can be moved to be adjacent to text referring to that incarnation (if that's the right word) to avoid using excessive verbiage. I can't get too excited about it, and I'm sure the problems can be surmounted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the need for more stringent rules. This may be my cranky psuedo-purist side coming out but Template:Externalimages would suffice for most adaptation images (no non-free pictures would be fairer than just one - I know, extreme) - but there may be no off-site alternatives for some, for all I know. For the record I uploaded the comic image. Uthanc (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britains got Talent 2008

Will there be any comment to the guy on BGT who did the impression of him? Or not worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewds (talk • contribs) 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gollum, possibly from the yiddish "Golem?"

is it possible that the name actually originates from the jewish tales of "golem" the humanoid? In the stories of course the usually refer to a figure made living from lifeless by humans. But that could be something to look into... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.197.120 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)