Tomb Raider 2018

Finally, someone who takes their training seriously to play the part (*cough* Gal Gadot *cough*) That is, at least for those of us who like our women to actually look strong and athletic which I realize is a subset of people here. Video link is her prep for the role along with bits from filming and some of the trailer.



Of course, some were probably disappointed with this casting as she lacks some of the usual attributes, but she's an accomplished actress and here's hoping that the writing and direction make it a movie worth seeing. The trailer looks good (not what I linked but easy to find) but that doesn't always mean much.

I liked the classic, over the top, Lara played by Jolie.

Both her movies are flawed.
I don't think I even stuck around to the end of the second one to be truthful.
But at least in the first movie they got the look of the character right.

This new Lara kind of is just there.
She does not dominate the scenes she is in.
Kinda boring.

I personally don't need a Lara Croft origin story.

I liked Jolie's movies for what they were. In this case, however, I admire her work ethic. Alicia is a pretty woman - she could have done what most actresses do in this situation and just act through the parts, let the stunt doubles do the work, and get her check. As to whether the movie will be any good, /shrug, like every movie that comes out it depends a lot on the writing / directing / story (at least for me.) She's no Jolie (hard to compete with that) but I would argue she's a better actress - maybe they'll get some use out of that.

Alicia Vikander will be fine as Lara. She is a great actress, even at her young age. And while this film doesn't really stretch her talents, I can see her doing fine.

The question for me is, is this really Lara Croft?

I must confess, I was a fan of the original Tomb Raider, back on PS1. But as the series grew, it became more and more distant from what it was setup to be. So much so, that, if I remember right, Toby Gard (Lara's creator) was either ousted or left the company. At that point, I also left the series, and never looked back.

The point of Lara Croft was that she was this mysterious, sexy, badass.

Now, every nook of her upbringing and life is explored and presented to you. And I think that takes away a lot of what she was about.

Instead of being this teenage nerd boys fantasy, she is now this feminist icon.

Whether the film will be good or not, I agree, will have to wait and see. A lot does depend on writing and direction and not just the actors.

But as far as I'm concerned, may as well have called the film Sara Loft: Archaeologist

Just my 2 cents.

Peace.

/K.

You are probably right, but then the same could be said of WW or any other female centered story nowadays (though I find it funny that they still pandered to the teenage boy fantasy by cosplaying essentially a Victoria's secret model for WW.) It's the time we live in - just like for those of us that grew up in the cold war era, many movies and shows reflected those themes. 10-20 years from now they'll be on some new kick.

Even as an archaeologist, Indiana Jones worked .

PS. Nothing but love for Gal Gadot even though I would have wished for a better casting choice personally. She seems a decent person, did a passable job on the movie and wish her nothing but success for the remainder of the movies. Any snark should be taken with that caveat.

To put it simply classic Lara was introduced and played as the mysterious, sexy badass, but we didn't get any hint, any element that justified her ungodly level of skill. For me she felt like she was just a bunch of traits piled up on each other: she's gorgeous, she's cool, she's badass, she can shot like a pro, she's filthy rich and an English noblewoman to booth and so on. I felt there was no depth to the character (BTW, I often feel the same about Batman), no significant reason for all these element to be strung together on a single character. What I enjoyed of the 2013 version was that we saw Lara cast in a situation that was anything but conventional and rising to the occasion.
There's a moment in the last part of the game when Lara storms the villains' fort singlehandedly. At some point during the scene one of the mercenaries scream something like "Oh my god, she's coming for us." and this is from the same guys who tried to rape Lara earlier in the game. In that story we see the transition from potential victim to ungodly badass, the character isn't established being such from the beginning, but we witness the transformation and for me this adds to the character instead of detracting.

Totally understand where you are coming from...

To put it simply classic Lara was introduced and played as the mysterious, sexy badass, but we didn't get any hint, any element that justified her ungodly level of skill.

And thats the point exactly.

Not everything needs to be deconstructed or justified, as long as there is a certain level of logic and thought given. Lets take Lara as an example.

she's gorgeous, she's cool, she's badass, she can shot like a pro, she's filthy rich and an English noblewoman

This is (or maybe was?), in the main, every geeks fantasy woman. As a gamer, I didn't need nor care to know more about her in the context of the game. At that age, I just wanted to shoot things and look at her triangular boobs

On a more serious note, I think this is something that has become a LOT more prevalent in media today - the need to spoon feed everything to the audience. Its prevalent in films, music, books.

Most of the runtime of movies today is exposition. The lyrics of songs are linear. There is no poetry to them, no symbolism, no ambiguity.

The great songs, I'm specifically referring to songs as art, have an ambiguity to them. You the listener are left to decipher the meaning, what they are. The same with films (and I'm not talking bullshit arty-for- the-sake of art films). If video games are an art form (which I believe they are), then the same applies to them.

Of course, this is just my opinion. But, going back to Lara, even at a base level, it made her so much more interesting when there was a mystery to her.

The same argument could be leveled at, say, James Bond. Who is he? In 50 years, his background has NEVER been really explored. Guess what? It doesn't make a slight bit of difference to the stories he features in. In fact, it adds to his mystique.

A more modern example could be John Wick. When you deconstruct the film down, it makes little sense in terms of his motivations. But to do that misses the point of the film. There is a beautiful absurdity to it that was preconceived, planned, and executed brilliantly.

The Flash in comics. I don't care how his powers work, Barry Allen is the fastest man alive, "the impossible". Thats all that needs to be said.

I understand that in some genres, character background, motivation, history, etc. are important.

I just think that in the case of Lara Croft, you're (not you specifically Woodclaw) missing the point if that is what you focus on.

Interesting discussion

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote: I understand that in some genres, character background, motivation, history, etc. are important.

I just think that in the case of Lara Croft, you're (not you specifically Woodclaw) missing the point if that is what you focus on.

Interesting discussion

Peace.

/K

I get exactly what you are saying. A couple of points.

First, I don't see how they effectively sell badass and boobs as a high level project in the current environment. It doesn't fit the current cultural narrative. They may do things like slip in the Victoria's secret model in order to get the boys to show up but NOBODY mentions it in those terms - in fact they completely avoid the issue.

Second, *If* they can make a good movie and work towards some sequels, then filling out her story can work. There will always be opportunities to insert mystery in a mystical / historical /spiritual item, group or backstory that it doesn't need to be rooted solely in the main character. Hollywood hasn't done a lot to prove they can do that well, however, as most of their mysteries seem to flop as obvious, stereotypical or just stupid. The odds aren't in their favor, but I'm willing to roll the dice.

Mostly unknown non-Hollywood director. Mostly untested writer (though the writer is also writing Captain Marvel.) Both of these things lower the odds of this coming out well but they also raise the odds slightly of it being exceptional with a very wide range in the likely middle somewhere.

Also enjoying the discussion.

First, I don't see how they effectively sell badass and boobs as a high level project in the current environment.

Just had flashbacks to Barb Wire when I read this

But I get what you are saying

I'll get back to your post later as I'm a little tired atm

Peace.

/K

Trailer number 2




Same boring character.
Same boring costume..

The actress is just there.
You could call her Cara Loft and get the same results.
She does not project or dominate any scene she is in.
It is like they are afraid of embracing the character.

Looks generic and boring.

Pass.

Peace.

/K

Alicia Vikander at least looks the part of an extreme action hero. Ultra fit. She looks like she could take some punishment and still keep ticking.

Angelina Jolie never looked right to me to play Laura. Wrong body type. Chicken-boned wrists that would snap so easily. But back in the day, they just put some oversized fake boobs on her and sold her to adolescents. She's a pretty fair actress, and that helped.

Don't know how good the writing and acting will be in this sequel, but Alicia gets my vote for the role.

Shadar

Alicia Vikander at least looks the part of an extreme action hero. Ultra fit. She looks like she could take some punishment and still keep ticking.

Hmm, I don't know about that tbh Shadar.

Vikander is a damn fine actress to be fair (and attractive). So she will do the best of whatever she is given with regards to the writing.

But back in the day, they just put some oversized fake boobs on her and sold her to adolescents.

That's the whole point of Lara Croft.

Seems like the modern, PC, SJW, feminist, modernist, pessimistic, impressionistic, etc, etc, etc, world, has either forgotten or chooses to ignore this fact.

Like Markiehoe says, just call her Cara Loft. At least that way, you appear to be trying something new.

Just my thoughts

Peace.

/K

Exactly!

They love the name recognition that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider has but they are ashamed of everything that gave the product name recognition.

I actually think that this show has a lot of potential, and i second Shadar's thoughts - i really do think Vikander is really suited to play the part.

I'm guessing most folks here haven't played the more recent games. Because the faithfulness of this production to those its full-on stunning to me.

Thats actually my whole point. "Modern" Tomb Raider (games et al) isn't TOMB RAIDER.

They may as well have given it a new name, since they don't seem to understand what the original concept was about. Except...

They love the name recognition that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider has but they are ashamed of everything that gave the product name recognition.

BINGO!

I have no problem with people who enjoy the "new" Tomb Raider games/films. Taste is subjective. As long as they can admit that they really aren't playing/watching "Tomb Raider", but are just being suckered in by the brand recognition.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote:

I have no problem with people who enjoy the "new" Tomb Raider games/films. Taste is subjective. As long as they can admit that they really aren't playing/watching "Tomb Raider", but are just being suckered in by the brand recognition.

Peace.

/K

I never cared much for the original Tomb Raider, although I did like the character's basic concept. As I result, I don't understand the subtleties associated with "this is" or "this isn't" Tomb Raider. Whether it uses an existing brand or creates a new one is irrelevant to me.

What I'm looking for is a wild and crazy action movie based on amazing physical stunts starring a very hot and very fit actress who can project a bit of quasi-superhuman power. Someone with chemistry. Based on the trailers, this movie and Alicia Viklander deliver that.

So I'm sure I'll enjoy the heck out of it without suffering any cultural shock or doubts about its authenticity or legitimacy. From what I've seen, Alicia is a much better fit than Angelina for playing a bigger-than-life action hero. She's got real muscles that actually move and not just pumped up fake boobs on a bird-like frame.

We'll see if she remains convincing in the full movie. If she does, then long live the 21st century Tomb Raider franchise.

Shadar

....I working on this same logic pretty much any franchise that evolved past its first iteraction would be considered untrue

Not true. Star Trek: TNG, DS9 and Voyager are pretty much considered Star Trek by fans, even though they evolved past the original iteration.

James Bond in the Craig-era, is still James Bond (he has pretty much all his original traits) and yet has evolved (mainly due to the times he is set in).

Darth Vader won't be Anakin Skywalker, because that was not part of the original Star Wars script, hence the rest of the franchise are not "real" star Wars movies. Superman was not supposed to flight or have heat vision or ... >gasp< ... a blonde teenager cousin.

I appreciate the examples, but these are false analogies. Things change in SCRIPTS all the time. Superman as a character has evolved in powers over time, but his CORE aspects have pretty much remained constant (up until the last time I read comics, which was a while ago tbh). Whether he has a "blonde cousin" or not is not really here nor there. That is not part of the core concept of Superman

If you're a fan of the old Tomb Raider games, I don't think anyone can fault you for that, but please accept the idea that the franchise moved on and changed over time.

Tbh, I'm not a huge fan of the original games, but that isn't really the point I'm trying to highlight. To use a crude example, its like taking Pretty Woman, writing it as an action film, and calling it "Pretty Woman". It can be done, but is it really "Pretty Woman"? And why not just call it something else if there isn't another motive behind it?

Look, I'm not saying one is better then the other, or one should or should not like one or the other. The point is, I would argue, they are mutually exclusive. So why not just rebrand this "Lara Croft" as a new action heroine. I would be much more on board with that tbh. You know, invent something new. Unless of course, that isn't your real intention.

We can argue to death over which interpretation was better, without going anywhere.

I agree. Which is why I'm not arguing that

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote:

....

Tbh, I'm not a huge fan of the original games, but that isn't really the point I'm trying to highlight. To use a crude example, its like taking Pretty Woman, writing it as an action film, and calling it "Pretty Woman". It can be done, but is it really "Pretty Woman"? And why not just call it something else if there isn't another motive behind it?

Look, I'm not saying one is better then the other, or one should or should not like one or the other. The point is, I would argue, they are mutually exclusive. So why not just rebrand this "Lara Croft" as a new action heroine. I would be much more on board with that tbh. You know, invent something new. Unless of course, that isn't your real intention.


Peace.

/K

Wait a minute... Pretty Woman was a romantic movie. Of course, changing its genre to action would be jarring and not representative. We agree on that.

But the original Lara Croft movie was an action movie based on a currently popular video game.. The new one is an action movie based on a currently popular video game. I don't understand why these should be mutually exclusive. They're both the same kind of movie as far as I can see. Just with a different script.

Maybe I'm missing something here (very possible), but I don't see a difference.

Shadar

Sorry for the crude example.

But the original Lara Croft movie....

I think I can see now where I differ.

I'm not comparing the old action movie with Jolie to the new one with Vikander. I'm looking at the original conception of the character of Lara Croft, against this new version of "Lara Croft".

My question was, is (Vikander) Lara Croft, really "Lara Croft"? Would it really make a difference if you called her "Clara Proft" apart from tapping into an established audience?

Peace.

/K

P.S. Been a while since I had an discussion here Nice to engage again with the crowd

kikass2014 wrote: Sorry for the crude example.

But the original Lara Croft movie....

I think I can see now where I differ.

I'm not comparing the old action movie with Jolie to the new one with Vikander. I'm looking at the original conception of the character of Lara Croft, against this new version of "Lara Croft".

My question was, is (Vikander) Lara Croft, really "Lara Croft"? Would it really make a difference if you called her "Clara Proft" apart from tapping into an established audience?

Peace.

/K

P.S. Been a while since I had an discussion here Nice to engage again with the crowd

Now this all makes more sense. I can only compare the original movie to the trailers from the new one. I have no idea whatsoever what the original (before the first movie) conception of Lara was. Never played either video game. I only know the movies.

Is the implication then that both movies failed to portray the original character well, with the new movie even further from the original?

(Given I’m a Tolkien fan, I’m very aware that movies can fail to follow the original author’s intentions, yet still be entertaining.)

Shadar