12/29/2017 Lara Croft vs. Lara Croft (why does it have to be versus anyways?)

This had been meant as the first series of blogs relating to "fandoms" and pop culture, specifically my observations on a few various fandoms.  That ship has sailed though I may still revisit the idea someday.  I still have comments about the "Star Wars" and and "comic book" fandoms as a whole. Then there are some choice comments on the "Hellblazer and John Constantine" that is much more specific than my comments about comic book fandoms as a whole.  

Anyways...  I am leaving this here from 12/29/2017

Lara Croft vs. Lara Croft (why does it have to be versus anyways?)

Yesterday, I ran across a tweet from a Twitch streamer, about Lara Croft.  Specifically, it was a Twitter thread between her and one of her followers (and perhaps friends) regarding the upcoming Lara Croft film (starring Alicia Vikander), her lack of enthusiasm for it, and her preference for the original movies (starring Angelina Jolie) as well as the original games.  I got involved in that conversation and she indicated that she prefers the original games to the reboots. That's fine as well. (I personally found the original games to be nearly unplayable but managed to finish one of the rebooted games.)

What troubles me about the exchange was the idea "Lara Croft" fans are not willing to give Alicia Vikander a chance in the role as Lara Croft. There were two reason suggested to me by Candy why this was the case: 1) The preference for Angelina Jolie and 2) The story seems to based on the rebooted game.  I don't really buy either of them as particularly fair.  Here's why:

1) The preference for Angelina Jolie
I get the love for Angelina Jolie.  She was a fantastic actress back in the late 90s and late-00s. Her turn as Lara Croft was ahead of its time in many ways.  To her credit, she seemed to do everything she could to live up to what fans of the game were expecting.  And she proved that not only could a video game film be successful if done right but that a female led film could make bank at the box office. (Hollywood may have not learned much from the lesson but she definitely proved it.) Aside from that, the film was well shot and was a fun film.  It was everything the original games were (for better or worse) and did more to make a lot of viewers (myself included) interested in the Lara Croft character than the games ever did.  Those two movies were made in 2001 and 2003 respectively.  Angelina has moved on from do many acting roles and prefers to focus on her humanitarian efforts (though she still does take some acting roles).  Even if Angelina were still able to do the role anymore, the odds are that she would not want to do it.

And we can say all that nice stuff about Angelina in the role now because we have seen it.  What a lot of people fail to remember is that while audiences loved the film, the critics hated it despite praising Angelina's performance.  Though to be fair, that is not saying much.

What people fail to remember even more is that there was backlash against Angelina being cast in the film.  Many fans of the Tomb Raider game, and fans in general, complained about everything from Angelina not meeting the 'right physical requirements' to Angelina's tattoos and her "well publicized and controversial personal life".  There were other things as well.  (I recall some fans outraged that a professional model who was doing promotional work as Lara wasn't simply handed the role with no audition.)   In short, fans were equally hostile to the prospect of Angelina playing their beloved Lara as they are now seeming to be toward Alicia.

2) The story seems to based on the most recent reboot of the game
Alright. Can we talk about Lara's backstory for a minute? All three of them. Over the course of Lara's 20 plus year history, Lara's backstory has been revamped or retconned at least three times not including what was presented in the films with Angelina.  Lara has been:

1. the "Wimbledon born Aristocrat turned adventurer following her surviving a plane crash. She became known for her books on her adventures as a mercenary, big game hunter and master thief",
2. the "daughter of two archaeologists, her father still a noble, who was spurned to become an adventurer after her mother disappeared following their surviving a plane crash (and her father disappeared as well)" and
3. the most recent incarnation of the "the daughter of wealthy archaeologists who turned down her family's wealth in order to make her own path".

The original film stayed more in line with the first origin but still added content. (Particularly regarding Lara's relationship with her father.)  I suspect the new film will deviate somewhat from the recent reboot's backstory as well. (There are actually suggestions of this in the trailer.)

Regardless of which origin you prefer, there are still some standards when defining who Lara Croft is as a character.  Standards that go beyond an "outfit" and to some extent a "look".  And honestly, game mechanics and improved capabilities in game engines have made a lot of those standards easier to get over with fans.  Lara Croft is an educated, tough, athletic, independent woman who while not bad on the eyes is not afraid to get her hands dirty (or afraid of a few cuts and bruises either).  While she is independent, she is willing to work with others on an expedition.  And while her family may be wealthy and have some degree of privilege, she doesn't rely on that to survive but rather on her own skills and knowledge.  Sure, Lara has her iconic outfits and braided ponytail that let people know that the character in the game is "Lara Croft" but there is much more that defines her.  (Or am I missing something?)

Let's be honest, who wants to see a remake of the original film? There would be more backlash on remaking the two films that Angelina did than doing a new story to launch a new franchise with Alicia.  And rightfully so!!

Now we get to why I think it is wrong to compare "Angelina's performance from 15 plus years ago" to "Alicia's performance that we've only seen a trailer and some stills from".

The short version is that it is two different actresses from two different eras each doing their take on the character.  It is no different than "Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and Christian Bale doing their own takes on Batman" or Albert Finney, David Suchet, and Kenneth Braunagh doing their own takes on Hercule Periot" with the exception that the two actresses have the luxury of telling two fairly different versions of Lara's story.

And the other added advantage is that it is two very capable actresses playing the role. 
     As I mentioned, Angelina was fantastic in the late 90s into the late 00s. (I am less sold on her recent work.)  She delivered a particular version of Laura from a particular era and was (arguably) the perfect actress to do so at the time.  Of course, I recall people complaining at the time.
     The work I've seen with Vikander during her relatively short career has been equally fantastic.  If I recall correctly, she has some awards to prove it (the same as Angelina had at the time).  And given the version of Laura Croft that they are aiming to portray, I think she will be well suited to step into that role and will do the character justice.  Least I hope so.
     Both actresses have a good solid understanding that their are expectations on them from fans.  Both actresses have worked their butts off to do their best to embody the version of the character that they are bringing to screen.  And from my understanding, unlike Angelina, Alicia was familiar with the character and had played the game prior to getting cast.  

The biggest thing I am saying here is give Alicia a chance not to just in playing a fairly beloved and iconic character in video games but to stand on her merits and performance in the role instead of comparing her to the different performance that Angelina gave back in 2001.

Also worth mentioning here: While I am citing the "Lara Croft fandom" as an example here, the example applies to any fandom.  (See my reference to Batman and Hercule Peroit, for examples. James Bond is another good one.)  It is far too common an occurrence for fandoms to want to be negative toward any sort of "new portrayal" or "new interpretation" of their beloved character before even seeing what happens with it and refusing to acknowledge anything positive about any portrayal of that character or franchise other than "their preferred version".

It is one of my biggest pet peeves.  

Cheers.