AdSense to Search

Custom Search
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

TheAmazingAtheist Is Not a Fan of Tomb Raider (Old)


This post is intended as a response to the video above, but I'll supply the original tweet that has garnered so much controversy (for whatever reason) here:


TJ, on his Twitter, has since revealed that he has only played the newest incarnations of the franchise and none of the originals by Core Design. So he couldn't be considered a fan and doesn't appear to do so himself anyway. However, that's not really important here, it just goes to prove my point that he's not a fan of these games. If he were, he'd be such because of the gameplay and, you know, the actual game design, and not because of the simple visual design of the main character. And really, given that you play from a third-person perspective in all of these games, you don't usually get a look at her breasts anyway unless some camera angles permit it, so the size of her tits is mostly portrayed in marketing materials. And that latter point is really important to understand, given that that's how Lara Croft became considered such a sexy character at all.

I do think that TJ is missing the point of contention many people have/have had with the above tweet, and that's the following: he's basically body-shaming Alicia Vikander, the lead actress in the starring role of Lara Croft, which is based on her current incarnation of the character. And why's he doing that? Because her breasts aren't big enough to match the promotional and marketing materials that have, through the 22 years of the franchise, through thick & thin, made her into (among other things) a sex icon in the videogame lexicon.

However, as a fan of the franchise (especially the Core Design era), I didn't much care for the big boobs aspect of Lara Croft. In fact, aside from her being a bad-ass, stone-cold (with a few exceptions) killer out to add to her collection of artefacts and treasures, and wealth, of course, I didn't pay attention to anything else about her. She was rather flat personality-wise and had undergone no character development in each game. The few exceptions, of course, being the odd gasp or disgust at the antagonists & their devious plans. The development of her character was left to the current era. No, I was a fan not because of what the marketing was trying to do, but because of how the games played. You know, the reason why we play games? If you play a game so that you can look at it, either because it has nigh photo-realistic graphics (Crysis was hailed for this aspect for years) or, in this case, because a character, no matter how few pixels could be derived from her polygons and textures, has big tits, then you're just not a fan. 

I liked the adventure, the puzzle-solving, the trial-and-error, and the thrill of success that was derived from the games. I liked that they were distinct in this regard: they were designed with a deliberate, and stand-out (but not always for the right reasons) grid-based movement system. The gameplay and the movements you made in order to complete the games were designed entirely around this system of tiles. If you mastered how it worked, you mastered most of the game itself. And that works in helping you enjoy the game even more. Because I still know plenty of people who can hardly even play, let alone enjoy, the games for how they are designed.

The main reason for her being considered a sex-icon of gaming is due mostly to the marketing around the franchise. Yes, her in-game model did have (progressively with each instalment) bigger and bigger tits, but it still wasn't central to the games, even to the character. And considering you said this:


You're just wrong. And what do I have to back that up? Why, an interview with the very creator of the franchise itself, Toby Gard (who left Core Design around the release of Tomb Raider II), in which he states the following:

It was never the intention to create some kind of 'page 3' girl to star in Tomb Raider. The idea was to create a female character who was a heroine, you know, cool, collected, in control, that sort of thing. The problem with those other games is that the female characters are actually there for purely exploitative purposes. I know you could argue that Lara with her comic book style over-the top figure is exploitative, but I don't agree. I think it's ridiculous to say that portraying stylised people is degrading. You can represent an over the top hero figure by augmenting characteristics like a jutting jaw, wide shoulders, thin waist etc. and that is not degrading to men. It may well be a stereotype, but it seems to me that people are overanalysing this whole thing. It's pretty simple, if women in a game are only there to be the equivalent of quiz show floozies then they are being portrayed in a sexist way. When it comes to Galleon there are all sorts of women in the Galleon world, just as there are all sorts of men.
 You could argue that Toby Gards' words support yours when he argues about how people were 'overanalysing' the portrayal of her figure, but it's his opening statement that shows he never intended Lara Croft to be so overly sexual in design in the first place. He wanted her to be bad-ass, stone-cold, unflapping in her drive to achieve wealth & fame. And to save the world while doing it, because other people want those same artefacts that she chases, but for nefarious purposes (destroying the world in some way) instead of simply putting them on display for fame & fortune. She's a cold-ass bitch who'll kill you without shedding a tear if you get in her way, but if you intend to use those same artefacts to rule or destroy the earth, she won't stand for that either.

As he explained later in the interview, he left Core Design (in part) because of his creative control over the franchise, which he co-created, by the way, was being taken from him. What did Core and, by extension Eidos Interactive, want for the creative department for the franchise? Why, to fixate on her sex appeal, because they felt it was an ace way to garner more and more money. And indeed, it was. But the co-creator did not agree with it, so it was one of the reasons for his departure.

So you trying to justify your crappy views by ignorantly stating that she was designed to be sexually appealing falls flat on its face, because of the very words of one of the minds behind the creation of the franchise as a whole.

Source: Gamasutra - Interview with Toby Gard (Oct. 23, 1998)

Then you said:


You are partially wrong with the above statement, and I am being generous here. The notion that Angelina Jolie's tits were as unrealistically large as they were in the videogames (and most prolifically, the marketing material) was debunked. How did they get her tits to appear so large? Why, have you not heard of the myriad ways women make their tits look bigger than they actually are? Wire bras, for instance, raise the breasts because ordinarily, gravity makes them seem smaller due to what is commonly derided as "sagging." According to some sources, like this one, in particular, the studio used "...padding to bring her from her normal 36C to a 36D. (The videogame Lara is estimated to wear a 36DD bra.)" Oh, and those C's and D's mean something, too. It makes all the difference from breasts appearing to "sag" to them appearing to be protrusile & firm.

So the studio had to use trickery (no CGI, thankfully) in order to make Jolie's portrayal seem closer to the videogame character, as she was being portrayed in the then current spate of Tomb Raider titles. Which, by the way, was only attributed to the progressively-increased polygon count and not necessarily to those same breasts somehow getting bigger and bigger in proportion. They just appeared more realistic with each new release. This, as mentioned before, was one of the issues Toby Gard disagreed with and left the same studio over. Even Angelina Jolie, who portrayed Lara in the first run of adaptations, wasn't as "buxom" as Lara Croft, even though the studios played up the character's sex appeal as much as they possibly could. And by the way, the sex appeal might've worked for you, but it didn't for me; indeed, the tits were cartoonish and ridiculous, distracting from what was far more interesting than a couple of tweaked breasts succumbing to the laws of physics before my very eyes (some would call this "boob physics").

You may argue that her big breasts defined her as a character, but going by the statements made by her co-creator, and by what I found to be more important to each game personally, I wholeheartedly disagree. And I definitely disagree with your body-shaming an actress for her (less sexually-appealing) portrayal of Lara Croft, who was only made sexually appealing because of marketing in the first god damned place. If she wasn't intentionally created just to be treated as a sex goddess, then I agree with her creator and not with people like you, who lack self-reflection and cannot concede that perhaps they're off the mark on this subject. 

I do agree that you got far too much exposure for this because, in the end, this was really another case of you trolling for attention. I already knew that about you, and I have for years, but the media clearly didn't. So that's the only reason I can forgive them at all for granting you this much-undeserved attention because you took part in body-shaming an actress for not matching the marketing that has surrounded her character for so many years. That same marketing that saw the character's co-creator resign from working with the character  Funny, now I know that marketing works more easily on you than it does on me, it appears that it is you who isn't fully capable of thinking for themselves. Amirite?


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

AM1200 Review (Horror/Thriller, DreamLogic Pictures)


Get ready for spoilers.

Well it took a while to track this gem down and I finally did tonight. It's a short film of only 39 minutes but those minutes are never squandered. The film was also met with a limited physical release. People who have watched it describe it as Lovecraftian, and when you too give it a gander, you will see exactly what those people mean.

One thing that pops out about the film is the film's minimalism. It has standard filmography that doesn't break any new ground on its own, but that's not befalling of the film's quality. The quality comes from the pacing and of course the eponymous "AM 1200", a radio station from which our anti-hero catches a distress signal. At night. A number of strange goings on, starting with some of his electronics on hand shorting out or suddenly ceasing their functions, mysterious lights forming in the wilderness, and of course the seemingly abandoned radio station all hint at something sinister.

So he goes inside, daft as that may be, and he too tries calling for help. More odd things make him go exactly where he's needed. As he investigates the radio station, noticing a barricaded door in the interim, he comes across a man detained to a pole. The man has clearly come out of some strange spell for he's not only entirely irrational, but is borderline psychotic. The encounter gets stranger and stranger hinting at a greater, more sinister force at work, but then his actions lead to the protagonist being forced to kill him.

After he does this, a strange, unexplained force seems to assault his mind. It's a struggle that he ends up losing and it gets the better of him. He grabs the detained man's body, hauls him over to the barricaded door, removes the barricade, then brings him down a cellar staircase. He hoists the body onto a workshop table of some sort and in a cold fashion he dismembers it. After he takes possession of a couple of those body parts, and brings them toward a hole in the floor.

Our protagonist peers into the hole, which at first resembles a well filled with water. Then something shifts within. It is this something that beckons him to offer the fruits of his horrible misdeed as a twisted feeding ritual. When this is done, he clambers toward the radio equipment that is still working and makes a call for help. The cycle continues.

So with the plot out of the way, let's get down to basics. First is the most noticeable aspect of the film: it is very short. This is not to the detriment of the product because everything that needed to be shown to the viewer was indeed all that was necessary. Ever heard of a little something called "excess" or "bloat", when referring to movies? Well at least this film can't be declared guilty of this. It's short and to the point, which is perfect. And because the film will very likely leave you with questions about what actually happened, that means the mysterious aspect of the plot was written well. It's a horror film with a cosmic tinge. In other words, the perfect Lovecraftian horror film.

Ray Wise, not exactly an A-Lister by some means (he's had credits in RoboCop, Jeepers Creepers 2, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, and Twin Peaks to name some), does show up in flashbacks to establish the protagonist's backstory, before he's on the run in his car to be exact. Not much is done with Wise's character otherwise but the whole sequence in which he appears does help to cement the film's dreary tone, something akin to a neo-noir film.

There are damn near no special effects used at all. And this actually works to the film's benefit because it ends up being, feeling so raw. When inexplicable lights appear in the woods, seeming to float their way closer and closer to our protagonist, you do feel a bit of dread as to what it is. As more and more strange goings-on manifest to scare the main character into taking shelter. One feeling that you may get from watching the whole thing is that it is all so minimalist. The radio station of note seems particularly tiny, but that adds to how fucking creepy the place is. Then towards the ominous ending you learn the terrible secret literally lurking right underneath.

If you want powerful chills coupled with modest brevity, then AM1200 is the horror flick for you. My only complaint right now is that the official DVD for this rather short (not that it's a downside in itself) film warrants a fifteen dollar price tag. If you think that's reasonable then by all means get it, and show your friends.


B+

The Good: 

+ Nothing in the duration of the film is wasted. It builds up to something, shows us the source of the horror, then sets up more atrocities.
+ Eric Lange delivers convincing emotional responses to the strange occurrences in the film.
+ Makes you keep guessing. That's how you do suspense!
+ The lack of music overall compounds the dread.
+ The radio station is definitely the creepiest part of the film.
+ Is inspired by the works of Lovecraft.
+ That thing in the hole.

The Bad:

- The film's brevity may actually turn off some viewers.
- Leaves  you wanting more.
- The film's price tag is a tad on the steep side.
- Little is done with Ray Wise's character beyond providing backstory to Lange's character.