New 'Tomb Raider' Film Poster Ridiculed for Photoshop Neck Fail

New 'Tomb Raider' Film Poster Ridiculed for Photoshop Neck Fail

The first trailer for the latest "Tomb Raider" film has been released along with an official poster, which is drawing all the wrong kinds of attention due to a Photoshop fail.

Naturally, Twitter is ablaze with comments from fans, ridiculing the apparent error. The poster shows Alicia Vikander, who plays Lara Croft, poised and ready for action whilst engulfed in the ocean. Except, her neck has been drawing comparisons to a raptor, thanks to it being unnaturally long.

One Twitter user, @MikeJMika, even took the time to re-edit the poster, posting online the amended version which be believes looks considerably more realistic.

Of course, being an online forum, others have hit back to suggest that, firstly, she naturally has a long neck, while others claim the light in the shot used on the poster makes it look longer than it actually is.

Is this the result of a questionable Photoshop job? The film is out in March 2018, and so far seems to be drumming up reasonable publicity… just probably not for the reasons the producers hoped.

What do you think? Have they gone too far editing her neck?

[via News.com.au]

Log in or register to post comments

36 Comments

Kyle Medina's picture

"All I see is another American acting job being given to a foreigner. Disgusting."

You can't be serious?

Michael Holst's picture

She's supposed to be British right?

So?

Ben Perrin's picture

What? Am I wrong? Isn't Lara Croft British?

Mark Alameel's picture

Don't try to bring intelligence to the internet. :D

Michael Holst's picture

Isn't there a bridge you're supposed to be under?

Ryan Cooper's picture

The film is being produced by Graham King (United Kingdon) and Gary Barber (South Africa/US), the production companies involved are MGM(US), Warner Brother (US), GK Films (Great Britain), and Square Enix (Japan). The rights to the film were originally acquired in 2011 by GK Films who brought on Norwegian director Roar Uthaug. The film was shot mainly in Cape Town South Africa and the UK Warner Brothers studios in Leavesden.

The film is by no means an American production, it is a joint venture by companies spanning several countries that was originally spearheaded by GK films in Great Britain.

As for the IP, Lara Croft and the Tomb Raider Franchise was created by Core Design in Derby, England who was bought out by Eidos Interactive in London who also owns Crystal Dynamics, the company that has been developing the games ever since. Again very much a British IP, who has chosen to produce the games in the United States.

If anything the argument could be made that a British IP and British production is bringing jobs TO Americans, not taking them away.

They chose Viklander because they felt she was the best choice of actresses who were available for the gig. It had nothing to do with her nationality. (Which is Swedish by the way)

Of the film's 4 principle actors, two were born in the United States (Daniel Wu, Walton Groggins), so, even though its not really an American production, half the principle actors are Americans.

Sounds to me, if anything, English jobs were given to foreigners, not the other way around.

The old films with Jolie were the same, joint productions between UK and US production companies for the most part. Particularly Mutual Film Company (US) and the BBC (UK) with distribution by Paramount (US). Though, back then they chose an American actress because she was the best for the role then.

I’ve never been to America, but I hear the rumours and have listened to your president. But please tell me that most of you aren’t like Bob here.

He can’t be serious. At first I thought he meant it as a joke, but he has since confirmed that he meant what he said. “Such a thing is important for any country and culture, and no less so for America.” This is the same Hollywood that changes factual event of history (world wars, Vietnam, Iraq, the list is endless) and sells them as new facts because the movies sell better. Kids won’t read history books but will believe what they see on TV.

“Another American acting job”. I can’t hear another bad American accent try to be a Nazi in a world war movie. Another German acting job going to an American :) And he must have missed the story about Ed Skrein leaving Hellboy.

Sorry to post this on a photography site, but I almost threw up when I browsed through FS and found this comment.

No, not all Americans are like him. The internet, unfortunately, has unleashed the worst in society.

Michael Holst's picture

Maybe you should stop watching. I mean in this comment thread you're clearly the only one who has an issue with foreigners. Were you passed over as the new Lara Croft and now you're salty or something?

Michael Holst's picture

You said earlier you have an issue with foreigners getting acting jobs but now your only issue is if they're illegal?

Michael Holst's picture

Shouldn't a company be free to hire anyone they deem best fit for a position?

Nah he's a vocal minority, and a troll. Just ignore him

You refer to which America? South, Central, North? Any specific country in your mind?

Anonymous's picture

Well, technically speaking, the name of the country is "The United States of America", not "America" and there is, in fact, a lot of argument outside of the USA over the usage of the term "American" to describe things related to the USA.

This argument occurs particularly in countries that teach the 6-Continent Model in school, which combines what we know as North and South America into a single continent called "America" with North and South only being regions (much in the way we in the USA use the term "Central America", which is not actually a continent as part of the 7-Continent Model that we are taught in our schools).

So depending on your perspective, "American" can mean one of several things—even in a historical context. It only pertains to the USA to you because you happened to grow up in an environment where this is how the word was used.

Anonymous's picture

I wouldn't agree at all that one would have to be "ignorant" or "anti-American" to object to the use of "America" to describe only the USA and "American" to mean only things pertaining to the USA.

If you learn that America is a single, unified continent as taught by the 6-Continent model, then it follows that you would be confused that the term "American" would only refer to people from a single country in that continent.

A similar thing actually occurs with the term "Asian" in England, which is often used to refer specifically to Indian people despite the fact that Indians, while Asian, don't represent the whole of the Asian continent. Would it be ignorant or anti-Indian to object to the use of the term "Asian" to describe only Indian people?

The trouble in this case stems from the face that since the formation of the USA, we ourselves haven't really thought of ourselves as anything other than "American" and there's no really intuitive name that comes out that would serve as a good alternative for citizens of the USA. It's not as if we're going to call ourselves something like "United States'ers" or something. Given the name of the country, "American" is probably the most natural descriptor to use.

Certainly there are a large contingent that make the argument for argument's sake on the basis of their anti-American feelings, but I just wanted to point out that this is not necessarily the case, nor is it necessarily an issue of ignorance.

Michael Holst's picture

Here's a straw man:

"If there were as many American actors and actresses in French movies and TV shows as there are British actors and actresses in American movies and TV shows of today, that would be considered intolerable by the very same people that are arguing in favor of what's going on with America's movie and TV production industry. It's hypocritical and anti-American, and shameful."

Anonymous's picture

What exactly do you mean when you say that it's an "American production"? What determines this designation?

The way I see it, this is about as much an "American production" as a modern day Ford is an "American car"—not very much.

Anonymous's picture

I suppose my question really is, "What does this even mean in an age where you have global ownership groups?"

Are you the type that still considers Ford and GM to be "American companies" despite them being owned internationally and having international production lines?

I could understand considering something to be an "American production" if the studio was completely American owned and the movie was produced within the United States with the primary audience being domestic, but that's just not true of big budget movies like this anymore.

Michael Holst's picture

Should we put trigger warnings about foreigners in future articles?

Michael Holst's picture

No one brought it up....

Michael Holst's picture

Race has not been brought up in our discussion so I don't see the point of your question. No I do not like playing the race card if you need an answer. Based on your clear opinions about who should and shouldn't be able to have a job, I'd love to hear about what you think of race and how it plays a role in our society. Then maybe a "race card" or whatever you call the defense of disenfranchised minorities would be warranted.

Kevin Devos's picture

Last I heard from reputable sources, there are plenty of jobs available in this country. Just because they don't want to give a job to a contemptible stick in the mud like yourself, doesn't mean there's a problem.

Kevin Devos's picture

oof! haha you don't hold back, I'll give you credit for saying so much in only a few sentences. Perhaps my opinions are contemptible, most are from any source. Facts are all that matters, and the fact is you're very one sided. There is no room for growth in your mind, you have made that ever so clear throughout your many comments on this site. In fact most on here know who and how you are and typically stay away. I'm going to do the same after this comment, have a good life alienating almost everyone. Good day sir!

joe o sullivan's picture

Does it really make a difference what country your mother was in when you decided to pop out of her vagina?

joe o sullivan's picture

I'm sorry to hear that, genuinely. Bad timing. I was however just speaking generally, not to you specifically, and trying to be blunt to emphasise the point. What I mean is, would you still feel the same if she was born in America while her mother was on holidays there? Or would you still consider her a foreigner? How many generations does it take for someone to be "American enough"?

joe o sullivan's picture

"she was born in Sweden." So if she was born in America everything would be OK? What if her parents lived in America but she was born in Sweden while they were visiting there? What about Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, is he a foreigner too? What about his children? Also, Brady is an Irish name.. doesn't that make you a foreigner?

Anonymous's picture

"The relevant part of our constitution that addresses birthright citizenship was meant to address slaves. Obviously that wouldn't apply to her or anyone born today. Unfortunately that fact is ignored today."

This is misleading if not wholly inaccurate. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in response to slavery and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but was not meant to merely "address slaves" as you state. Congressmen very consciously worded the amendment to apply to any person born in the United States (see the congressional debates where they specifically apply the amendment to children of German and Chinese parents born in the country). Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the concept that birthright citizenship applies to people other than slaves (see U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 1898). Historically, constitutionally, and legally the United States has upheld the notion of birthright citizenship. It is a contested topic, but it has not legally been reversed, and continues to apply to people other than slaves.

In your hypothetical situation, she would not "wrongly" be considered a citizen. She would legally be a citizen.

Oh, and the film rights for Tomb Raider are owned by GK Films, which is a British company. The film is a joint partnership with GK, MGM and WB (you conveniently didn't mention GK when you described the "relevant" American production companies earlier, by the way. Relevant in what way? Relevant to continuing your erroneous point, perhaps?) Regardless, ownership of the franchise is retained by GK, who bought the rights to Tomb Raider from Square Enix, which is a Japanese company. The Producer is British. The Director is Norwegian. It was filmed in South Africa and the United Kingdom. It's not an American film, it's an international project.

Despite constant claims, your posts like these are sorely lacking facts.

Can we please get back to talking about photography now?

Anonymous's picture

"Even if you included non-blacks the point of that ammendment wasn't to encourage future illegal and legal immigrants to come to America and have anchor babies."

I didn't include non-blacks, the writers of the Amendment did in their Amendment and their published rationale for it. Let's stick to historical and legal facts, rather than unfounded statements. You and I have no idea what they wanted to encourage in the future, we can conclude only from their words. And their words have no allusion to your claim.

"Such a remark is useless and illogical. You can't refute specific things without actually addressing them or making them about me."

I refute specific claims that you brought up using historical information, and only make it about you in the way that I am responding to your unfounded claims.

"The Supreme Court has upheld numerous things that are unconstitutional, immoral and obviously wrong."

By definition, the Supreme Court reviews and upholds the constitutionality of legal cases. This is called judicial review, and has been associated with the Court since Marshall (early 19th century). The "immoral and obviously wrong" is your opinion. OK.

"It's a film that wouldn't have made it to the light of day without the two major American movie studios backing it"

Speculation without any facts to back it up, which seems to be your m.o. here. Any insider information on the film to back this up? The franchise rights are owned by GK, which makes the film legally owned by a British company. It cannot be considered a solely American film. That's simply wrong. And BTW: a preference can't be right or wrong; it's a preference. You can't "rightly prefer" something.

"Can we please get back to talking about photography now?
What's preventing you from doing so?"

Nothing at all.

Anonymous's picture

I'm more concerned with accuracy at the moment. As I've shown above using historical evidence, your point that "The relevant part of our constitution that addresses birthright citizenship was meant to address slaves." is historically and legally simply untrue. More relevant to the original article, your continued claim that this film is solely an American production is also inaccurate, and I've shown that to be the case again with verifiable information.

You have a right to say what you want, you have a right to your opinion. But I was taught that being accurate and truthful is more important than my ego, and that when I misspeak, it's proper to acknowledge my wrong. You may wish to ignore this, as you've said all you need to say. You may wish to nitpick points further in an effort to "win" an argument. You may even say that these inaccuracies don't diminish your main argument. But the fact is you wrote fallacies and have yet to own up to the mistake.

Now I've said all I need on the matter.

More comments