Tomb Raider Reboot

I went back and rewatched the first trailer for a more direct comparison and I was surprised to see that the two trailers actually share a lot of of their footage. The second one is just edited a lot better, has a better soundtrack, and the few scenes that are different result in the action feeling a lot faster paced.

I'm just worried that it looks like they're cramming parts of both games' plot into the film. It looks like they have the aunt character from the second game and Trinity are the antagonists, but we also have the Devil's Triangle setting from the second game which was completely removed from Lara and Trinity and Mathias wasn't put on the island because of either character.

I like what I'm seeing on its own, but I hope we don't have any strange adaptation because neither plot was written with the other in mind.

edited 18th Jan '18 6:47:03 PM by InkDagger

That's right, the movies that made that actress insist on speaking British forever after. Pass.

The second Tomb Raider game and the first two movies I may think back fondly on because of nostalgia, and I suppose the first Tomb Raider game has a special place in the history of it's industry for proving a video game with an obviously female human protagonist can sell, but my fondness for the series kind of ends there.

I enjoyed both reboot games, I enjoyed the characters, but cramming both into one film? Seems like overkill.

"What film makers say and what's actually true are usually 180 degrees apart."

So, Lara's mortal enemy will turn out to be Khan?

Apparently, early reactions to the film are positive.

They're...positive? Are we about to have a movie based on a video game break out of that dreaded video game movie ghetto?

T He scores of IMDB say so. Gotta wait for Rotten Tomatoes though.

It's at fifty percent, with three out of three, split down the road between positive and negative right now on RT, but mostly from really independent review sites and and small-time international newspapers.

I feel like removing Sam was a big mistake. That was one of the most powerful emotional elements of the reboot game.

Mind you, I think removing all of Lara's supporting cast was a mistake.

Still at 50% on Rottentomatoes

Seems the consensus is Vikander's really good and looks the part, but the script is pretty bad and doesn't give her much to do that's interesting.

Someone on another forum suggested she was removed because some might read the Les Yay subtext in he relationship with Lara and that might piss off the foreign market.

It certainly seems to be viewed as a better movie than the Jolie films, even if not especially great itself.

As far as Sam, I was actually ambivalent about her role in the game. She functionally was a generic Damsel in Distress, with the only switch being that the "knight" to rescue her was also female. Conversely, I felt it also muddied up Lara's character and the overall plotting, as she is so singularly fixated on rescuing Sam it got in the way of the archeologist/exploring aspect of the series. The game was a lot more survivalist and didn't spend much time on actual tomb raiding.

I'm inclined to think they substituted Lara's father because of the previous movies.

edited 16th Mar '18 5:49:07 PM by CharlesPhipps

Just got back from the movie. It was... alright. Not great and better than most video game movie adaptations, but some REALLY stupid adaptation choices were made.

They are strangely faithful in some places like Anna Croft being there and the Plane climbing and Parashute through the woods were all there. The ship sinking scene is almost exactly like the in game scene. And then there are a lot of random changes that make no sense.

Let's start with the main plot. It combos the first game but also pushes the overarching plot of the second game in there. They're off to find Yamatai and the tomb of Queen Himiko which was also the last place that Richard Croft was known to go after. But, Himiko isn't this Sun Queen and instead was a Queen of Death and brought decay with a touch of her hand.

But, instead, she's not some body snatcher and, in fact, she's revealed to be a HEROIC figure as she realized she was a immune and spreading a plague and came to the island to die and be buried. So, Himiko being a still alive evil body snatcher is gone.

The storms still happen and are trapping people on the island. Then its never mentioned again even when they suddenly are able to pull a Hilocopter in and escape. They can just suddenly leave. But, there's still some wierd artifacts left over like some traps go off and Croft says 'These traps were meant to keep someone in!' So we're expecting to find something alive down there, right? Nope. Himiko is dead. Never mind I have no idea what was ever supposed to indicate 'These traps are meant to keep something in' because that's never explained. Then Himiko at one point shoots out of her coffin but, Hahahahah! Its just mechanical. Except, if she were entombed to keep the disease down there, why make a mechanism like that? It felt like it only existed to keep the game audience on their toes because they're expecting her to be alive.

Mathias was a strange one too. He bears a lot more in common with Whitman so I don't know why they didn't just make him Whitman anyway. Not to mention they call him Mathias exactly once (and mispronounce it) and call him 'Vogal' the rest of the time so I don't know why they bothered. He wasn't particuarely interesting either.

Ok, so, Lara finds a guy who's the son of the guy who took Richard to Yamatai. I have questions. One, how do they have the same name? Two, how does he simultaniously have his father's boat (The Endurance, btw) but the father is missing?

They also introduce the ship captain and kind of a semi-flirty love interest and I wish they had killed him off instead of letting him survive the storm. Because after that, it felt like the writers didn't know what to do with him. Mathias has an establishing character moment of shooting a worked because the worker is coughing. The captain guy attacks the guards to let Lara escape and... Mathias doesn't kill him? I assumed it was a hint that Mathias planned something, but he never does anything with the captain and the captain never has another scene with Lara anyway. It just felt... strange. Like they had nothing to do with him but didn't want to kill him off either.

They also drop in the Anna is part of Trinity plot twist at the end for a sequel hook. But I have further questions. If Richard knows that Anna is Lara's remaining guardian and that Trinity infiltrated his properties as the ending clearly states, why would none of that have ever come up? Why would he have left Lara with Anna if he knew she was working with Trinity? It works better in the games.

To be clear, I enjoyed a lot of the movie and I'm sure its not too terrible, it just doesn't make sence in some places but I could see a sequel doing a lot better with some of the problems.

Sounds like they removed the supernatural stuff to keep China happy.

Ugh, STUPID.

The games had Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane in full effect and that was kind of the point.

wait, China would be offended by the supernatural?

I hear Ghostbusters wasn't shown over there because of the ghost elements.

There’s a significant history of references to demons and skeletons being removed from games and movies released in China.

No. They do show a corpse decay into a skeleton on screen and the disease has an unexplained and uncommented on zombie like effect. So, I don't think China had anything to do with it and it's more just mangled writing.

edited 17th Mar '18 6:38:42 PM by InkDagger

China is an officially atheist country that cracks down on religion all the time.

So, a Japanese Lich Queen would probably be an issue with them.

I just finished watching the movie. It was a lot better than I expected. :)

It was alright for a video game movie. Better than Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed, and Resident Evil put together. Some of the scenes looked straight out of the game.