PDA

View Full Version : Keira Knightley scores public vote on new Lara Croft



MissLara2U
22nd Sep 2004, 23:20
Tomb Raider Chronicles all week has been canvassing public opinion on who should replace bee-stung lipped beauty Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft should Paramount Pictures commission a concluding Tomb Raider motion picture, as is being suggested by some factions of the movie-making industry at present. More than 3,000 avid readers cast their vote, and the results have proved somewhat conclusive.

Consuming 46% of the public vote, 19-year-old Keira Knightley - daughter of actor Will Knightley and playwright Sharman Macdonald - appears to be the favourite to don pistols and hot-pants to reprise the role of ardent Tomb Raider Lara Croft, with 31-year-old English rose Kate Beckinsale bringing up the rear with a combined vote of 28%. Other more bizarre suggestions included drag supremo Ru Paul, who curiously racked up 2% of the vote and former Lara Croft model Rhona Mitra, garnering 7% of public opinion.

A source attached to motion picture giant Paramount recently confirmed the studio is still negotiating a third Lara Croft-helmed movie to conclude the trilogy originally touted by director Simon West. Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie - who played lead video-game heroine Lara Croft - had already dismissed a concluding picture during an interview in March but reiterated her decision again while in Venice to promote DreamWorks' Shark Tale. "I just don't feel like I need to do another one, because I felt very happy with the last one."

Our readers have spoken. Is Paramount listening...? Only time will tell.


M.

www.tombraiderchronicles.com
www.tombraiderforums.com

Nerevar
23rd Sep 2004, 09:54
With all possible due respect to the elected thespian's acting abilities that would be like having L.DiCaprio portray W.Churchill in a remake of The Eagle has Landed.

whitemetal
23rd Sep 2004, 10:49
:eek: :( :) :D :D :D Ha!Ha!Ha!
That is so funny Nerevar
I agree.

Acceber
23rd Sep 2004, 13:05
Couldn't disagree more (with the 46%) and couldn't agree more with Nerevar. ;)

KK is far too young to play Lara, and sure, she can jut her chin out but when she does it she comes across as a petulant child, not a determined adult. :rolleyes:

Kate Beckinsale I wouldn't mind so much... I actually think her figure is more like Lara's than AJ's, if that's what matters (and to me it's only part of an overall character impression), but as AJ did the first two I'd like to see her in any third. Otherwise it's not the concluding part of a trilogy, it's starting again. :D

Chip Davis
23rd Sep 2004, 13:08
Not to be crass, but isn't Kiera, um... shall we say, porportioned very differently from Lara?

dhama
23rd Sep 2004, 13:28
CGI please........... how many more times :rolleyes:

Solange
23rd Sep 2004, 14:27
Originally posted by dhama
CGI please........... how many more times :rolleyes:
Till the right people start listening! ;)

I heard you the first time! :D But I'm afraid that won't help! :p

midroth
23rd Sep 2004, 14:53
Kate Beckinsale I've seen in Underworld, really not bad. Dhama, I think a CGI would not have so many chances. Look, a beloved name brings people in the Cinemas, but a CGI? The fans cannot met, touch, ask for an autograph etc. ALso I see what's possible with CGI (Gollum).

LARAMANIAC
23rd Sep 2004, 15:26
Originally posted by dhama
CGI please........... how many more times :rolleyes:

I agree - CGI please!!!!!! :rolleyes:

dhama
23rd Sep 2004, 17:17
Originally posted by midroth
Kate Beckinsale I've seen in Underworld, really not bad. Dhama, I think a CGI would not have so many chances. Look, a beloved name brings people in the Cinemas, but a CGI? The fans cannot met, touch, ask for an autograph etc. ALso I see what's possible with CGI (Gollum).

Let's get one thing into perspective here, Lara Croft is not real, Lara Croft never will be real, and Lara Croft isn't suppose to be real. Lara Croft is a character that belongs to a game that we are entertained by. This is why Tomb Raider movies should be CGI.
And please don't use a capital 'D' in my name, it makes me sound important... and i'm not; believe me.

Solange
23rd Sep 2004, 17:55
Originally posted by dhama
And please don't use a capital 'D' in my name, it makes me sound important... and i'm not; believe me.
Oh yes, dear! You are! http://team.tombraider.be/solange/Smileys/hug.gif

midroth
23rd Sep 2004, 18:19
Originally posted by dhama
Let's get one thing into perspective here, Lara Croft is not real, Lara Croft never will be real, and Lara Croft isn't suppose to be real. Lara Croft is a character that belongs to a game that we are entertained by. This is why Tomb Raider movies should be CGI.
And please don't use a capital 'D' in my name, it makes me sound important... and i'm not; believe me.
dhama (better?), I know Lara is not a RL-Person - she is a CGI. But I know also there are tons of cinema-visitors they don't know it (very strange) and a lot of them would not like to see a CGI-movie (just Kiddystuff for them). Further, say to an actor "jump", he is doing this in ~1 sec. A CGI needs how long? The new digicams let me see the actor jump some seconds later, a CGI ... minute, hour, week? "Holeywood" wants fast results, you know. 3 years for a CGI-movie, or a movie I can get in 3 month. Ok, CGI-Lara would be much more authentical, but... The director changed his opinion "No, no...do it so once more for me, please", some takes later "Cut. Ok!". A CGI you can't "correct" so fast. I just try to think behind the lines. "Holeywood" tries to make cheap movies more and more. And fast money is the best money (for them).
Again: I think for LC the best would be a CGI-movie. Just ... I don't wanna make the calculation without the "Holeywood" standards.
Btw: Underworld (the movie) was based on the PC-game (Activision) "Vampires - The Masquerade" (movie/game story is close to 1:1) and imho better realizied than the both TR-movies. A quality like this would be ... ok. For me.

uzigirl
23rd Sep 2004, 20:15
On the one hand we 'may' have a third Tomb Raider Movie but having a different actress play Lara, no thanks.

I really hate it when we have sequels where they change the actors/actress's that had originally were in the movies.

It's just Not the same, not for me anyway....

midroth
23rd Sep 2004, 21:26
Originally posted by uzigirl
On the one hand we 'may' have a third Tomb Raider Movie but having a different actress play Lara, no thanks..... That's a further "problem". The burned-in "this roll=this actor". I remember Bond. The first one (for a lot of people the one and only) was Sean Connery. He has left the roll and a lot of people thought "Bond is dead". Lazenby, Moore, Darlton, Brosnan where the next. Bond was not dead. And everyone of the mentioned found fans. I like Brósnan most.
Maybe we should give Lara the same "right" not to be bound to one actress.

Lia67
23rd Sep 2004, 23:21
It's to bad they didn't start out with CGI for the first two movies. Capturing the TR environment would have been an added bonus and think of the possibilities they could have acheived with special effects.

Yes I know that they do that with real life movies to, but I appreciate the artistic and technical talent that goes into making CGI programs or movies.

EddyBones
24th Sep 2004, 00:03
Originally posted by dhama
Let's get one thing into perspective here, Lara Croft is not real, Lara Croft never will be real, and Lara Croft isn't suppose to be real. Lara Croft is a character that belongs to a game that we are entertained by. This is why Tomb Raider movies should be CGI.


I'm sorry to say, my friend, that I don't see any logic to this argument. If it's the way you make it sound, Lara Croft should not be in any movie whatsoever. To look at it another way (my way), Lara Croft is an entertainment icon that was in a game that has now expanded to the big screen that many of us are entertained by--myself included. I'm entertained by a live action portrayal of the icon. I don't think "once computer generated, always computer generated" works. I'm not trying to bad-mouth you, but that seems narrow minded to me.
On the other hand, I would like to see a CGI movie too. And yes, we heard you the first time. But apparently you never really posted the comment before, so maybe not:p

Acceber
24th Sep 2004, 08:36
Originally posted by midroth

Maybe we should give Lara the same "right" not to be bound to one actress.

Well sure, I can agree with that. Provided there's a lot more than three movies though, otherwise I don't think it would come across well. It seems picky and inconsistent and suggests, to me, that the casters have no confidence in their choice, thus serving to demean their original decision.

If there was a whole run of TR movies, different actresses would work, but not in a 'trilogy'. It took five games for Lara to look different (ignoring voice and hairstyle here ;)) and I was comfortable with that number.

I wouldn't mind a CGI or live action movie - but I always like to sample grass from both sides of the fence. :D :)

midroth
24th Sep 2004, 10:34
Originally posted by Acceber
... If there was a whole run of TR movies, different actresses would work, but not in a 'trilogy'. ... If we like to see a third TR-movie, we have to accept a new actress. AJ said NO to a third TR-movie.
Btw: Bond was planed originally one movie, only.

uzigirl
24th Sep 2004, 12:23
I don't think that you can compare 'Bond' in the way that they had so many actors for that (btw i prefered SC too) because it isn't about a video game adventurer as Tomb Raider is.

We have played the games and the movies followed with Miss Jolie acting out as 'Lara' brilliantly as I'm sure we all agree.

I think it would take time for us to get used to a new actress playing 'Lara' in a third movie which would withdraw our thirst to watch the movie with excitement because of a different 'Lara' and not fulfill the whole "angelina/tombraider" as we know it.

Nybis
24th Sep 2004, 13:54
I completely disagree with the CGI point of wiev. I for one is glad they didn't make the movies CGI.
When making a movie with real people the actors can with their performance make a movie entertaining and well worth watching in spite of a half crappy script.
CGI is very limited to the script and easily gives of a rather "flat" impression.
Like the Final Fantasy movie. It looked beutiful, but the story was boring and the CGI characters came off kinda unemotinal.
You'd hear an emotion in the voice but not seeing the matching facial expression.

As for having another acress playing Lara... I'd still prefer that Jolie would do it, but my secondhand choice would be Kate Beckinsale.
Kiera Knightley is too young to do it. The Lara character is a woman in her thirties, not barely 20.

midroth
24th Sep 2004, 14:43
Originally posted by Nybis
...
As for having another acress playing Lara... I'd still prefer that Jolie would do it, but my secondhand choice would be Kate Beckinsale.
Kiera Knightley is too young to do it. The Lara character is a woman in her thirties, not barely 20.
Kate Beckinsale would be my choice, too. If we have to choose between Kate and Keira. Keira is to young.

Originally posted by uzigirl
I don't think that you can compare 'Bond' in the way that they had so many actors for that (btw i prefered SC too) because it isn't about a video game adventurer as Tomb Raider is.

We have played the games and the movies followed with Miss Jolie acting out as 'Lara' brilliantly as I'm sure we all agree.

I think it would take time for us to get used to a new actress playing 'Lara' in a third movie which would withdraw our thirst to watch the movie with excitement because of a different 'Lara' and not fulfill the whole "angelina/tombraider" as we know it. Oh, there are a points/facts to compare. The burned-in thinking Lara=AJ, Bond=SC, Bond/Lara, both are not RL persons.
Sorry, I can't agree AJ was acting billiantly as Lara. AJ was acceptable in the first one, but terrible in the second. Imho.
But this is melted snow. We will see, or not.

MissLara2U
24th Sep 2004, 18:28
I’m inclined to agree that Jolie did a mediocre job as Lara Croft at best, and to be honest, the second motion pic was running not 2 minutes before I began to cringe. Final Fantasy (the cgi movie) took years of production, yet the final product didn’t bode well with cinema audiences. I would hazard a guess that the reason for this was because of the obvious detachment the viewer felt while watching the movie. I appreciate that movies are meant to take us out of our world by offering us a glimpse of another, but IMO there still needs to be that unquestionable link to reality. (i.e. human actors, human situations, the fundamental idea that it could be “us (the viewer) in the situation that is playing out on the silver screen.

CGI Tomb Raider? Perhaps. Perhaps not. IMO, there would be too much baggage from the previous two “mediocre” motion pics to award a fair shot at a successful third pic.

But what I do know… ;)

M.

Trinity34
24th Sep 2004, 22:38
Originally posted by MissLara2U
CGI Tomb Raider? Perhaps. Perhaps not. IMO, there would be too much baggage from the previous two “mediocre” motion pics to award a fair shot at a successful third pic.

But what I do know… ;)

M.


Those mediocre pictures made an awful lot of money...... :)

dhama
25th Sep 2004, 11:47
Originally posted by Gandalf the Gray
...On the other hand, I would like to see a CGI movie too.

Oh, so you do agree with after all mate.. :D

dhama
25th Sep 2004, 11:48
Originally posted by MissLara2U
CGI Tomb Raider? Perhaps. Perhaps not. IMO, there would be too much baggage from the previous two “mediocre” motion pics to award a fair shot at a successful third pic.

I would be more interested in a CGI series than a movie..... how about you?

MissLara2U
25th Sep 2004, 16:40
Greetings dhama.

I would have to say no. As mentioned above, I think folk need to identify with a character. I’m not sure a computer-generated Lara Croft in a full-length motion picture would create the connection. Video-games are different because they award the player a degree of interaction with the character via means of control.

M.

LARAMANIAC
25th Sep 2004, 22:21
Originally posted by MissLara2U
Greetings dhama.

I would have to say no. As mentioned above, I think folk need to identify with a character. I’m not sure a computer-generated Lara Croft in a full-length motion picture would create the connection. Video-games are different because they award the player a degree of interaction with the character via means of control.

M.

I really don't see how you can say that, the pure essence of Lara is cgi, this is her environment! I'm sure if a cgi movie was made Lara would have a voice, a plot, other characters to interact with, just like the 'real' movies. Surely that would captivate your attention and create the connection like any movie does. Have you watched any anime or cgi before?

Alti
4th Oct 2004, 00:28
I like Kate and Kiera both as actresses, but I can't see either one of them as Lara. Angelina is the one and only Lara for me. I don't think the movie would be quite right without the original actress, just like Batman, Michael Keaton is the Batman, George Clooney and Val Kilmer stunk as Batman.
:rolleyes:

thanhkim
5th Oct 2004, 03:39
I think a cgi movie is the best way to go, just cause aj isn't going to do the movie doesn't mean there should not be one CGI with execellent story line (aod type) and done by cd then I sure it would be good. If the guys who did shrek maide tr theen that would be cool too. I just hope they pick someone like lara - a lady AJ is a total insult to lara.

richie87
5th Oct 2004, 16:21
there is no way any other actress could play lara how we ALL want her because we have so many different views on the subject, but untill they make another film with a new actress we cant know how they willprotray her