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?


Log in or register to post comments


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

Alright, back to the poster. All I can say is that I don't think most movie posters have ever been realistic. The earliest ones weren't even photos. They were drawings/paintings of the characters. Check out the human proportions on those famous posters below.

Kyle Medina's picture

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

You can't be serious?

Why not?

Michael Holst's picture

She's supposed to be British right?


The new actress is Swedish, by the way.


Already addressed elsewhere below Alexander.

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

Or objectivity, manners and actual debate?

The movies have been American productions. The nationality of the fictional character has no relevance.

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.

It is an American production. That other foreign input, besides actors and actresses, was brought on or that it was filmed outside of America doesn't change that fact. In fact, I would similarly argue against the outsourcing of those other aspects of movie and TV production.

I never brought up "IP." It has no relevance to my comments. That said, America can surely write and tell its own stories for the big and little screen. It used to be very good at that. Such a thing is important for any country and culture, and no less so for America.

I've never even been against seeing some foreign and actors and actresses in movies of the past, but back then it was much less the exception, not the norm of today, especially on TV. 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.

That's all I have to say on that matter in these comments. You and everyone else are welcome to comment on the rest of my post, if you like.

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.

So I'm the worst in society simply because I want to protect American jobs, our movie and TV industry and America's culture?

That you would sum up American movie and TV history in such a negative way only shows you to be anti-American.

An American actor or actress doing a bad accent has no relevance. Don't watch American movies or TV shows if you are disturbed by what you see.

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?

The only issue I have with foreigners is them coming into my country illegally and them being given American jobs over Americans. Quit playing the xenophobe card.

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?

Read more carefully. The key word is and.

Michael Holst's picture

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

The labor and immigration laws of most countries, if not all, give priority to their own nationals when it comes to employment, and rightly so.
Unfortunately when it comes to foreign actors and actresses they are being allowed to come work in America in droves. For those instances where an American studio has facilities overseas, that brings up the matter of taking production outside of the country, another thing I'm against.

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?

There's a country with that name, and the singular usage of America historically applies to it. Why are you being intentionally obtuse to that fact Alexander? I'm sure you know better.

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.

Technically speaking Mexico is called the United Mexican States.

The only people that argue against the usage of America are those that are either ignorant, anti-American or both. Typically it is those that are anti-American.

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.

More comments