Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I read that Paramount is in talks with Kelly Brook to play Lara Crpft in the new TombRaider sequel. This comes after Angelina Jolie said she would like to reprise her role. I was wondering how it got by the execs at Paramount that Jolie was the only good thing about the original. If the script hadn't stank up the screen, the film would have been a hit. Plain and simple, without Jolie I won't bother seeing this film. Does anyone know where you can write and complain about this horrible turn of events?

A sequel shouldn't be made to this horrible film.

How about a prequel To?

Same differance.

No no no no no.

One's set before the original and the other is set after the original.

Still it would suck.

I think you're missing the point. I thought the original sucked. It should have been like a female Indiana jones or Mummy instead it was more like a bad StarGate episode. However, Jolie was great in the movie. She has the acting chops needed to give the role more depth and she seemed to evolve into the role. Now it's hard to imagine Lara Croft without thinking of Jolie.
I think a good sequel could be made. Look at Evil Dead 1 & 2. They felt the original wasn't right so they went back and made it better. Now Evil dead 2 is a classic because they didn't recast the one thing that made the original stand out...Bruce Cambell.

I say keep Jolie and lose the high tech gagetry and develope a more adventure driven story and the film could easily be a hit. But in the tradition of Indy and James Bond they should lose the Tomb Raider name and just go with a seperate title for each.

Yes...Yes...Thank God!

Jloie has signed on to star in the newest Tomb Raider and she is trying to get into a "lean mean fighting machine shape"

i heard that she has signed for the first 3 films. And till then she's not allowed to have kids. That's why she wants to adopt one. The firs movie, at least, sucked......big time......but i watched it to the end because of her....

First 3 ?!?!?!? Oh, no.

Yup....3. If the second does not kill me then the 3rd one sure will. And maybe there'll be more than three. maybe they'll be like the computer games...let's say.....5 movies. And no Angelina in the last 2 . Let's hope not

I never saw the first one.

I'd kill myself if I saw it.

good for u.
It leves some damage u know

I hope they pick BROOK, she looks 100% better than Jolie.

Jolie brings the Image of Stank to Croft. Lara's not supposed to look Slutty, sexy yes, not slutty.

Also Jolie does'nt fill out her outfit well. Her Body is weird. I'll look at the Video game renders before looking at jolie. Yuck.

First off, Jolie didn't look right in the outfit because they apparently tried to give her monster breasts. Why? No clue. But the simple fact is that Jolie is an actress. I don't mean she's been on screen before. I mean she can actually act. So well in fact that she pulled off a dead on Lara Croft. IMO. Not to mention the fact that she is able to carry practically any movie she is in with near flawless percision (save the ones that drowned her out with far to many special effects and a lame ass storyline)

Brook may look like Croft when you dress her up but in the end she ain't got nothin on Jolie.

Look......I can't imagine any actress that could've made me look at such a bad movie xcept for Angelina. U can't act that good on a bad role. 'cause it really was a bad role.
I can't understand the fake brests thing

I'm not defending the quality of the first Tomb Raider film. I thought it sucked. Scroll up, and i'll verify that myself.

What I am defending is that if they want to make the second one good they need Jolie.

She's the only thing that could basically save it. Unless they get a whole new batch of screenwriters and stuff.

Like I said earlier, I think they should move more toward a Indiana Jones/Mummy type film. Not realistic but grounded in reality. Take for instance Raiders of the Lost Ark. The film had quite a bit of supernatural stuff going on. However, within the context of the film it was believable. In the first Tomb Raider, wierd shit kept happening for no logical reason what so ever, and it happened so much that the average person is thinking about how wierd the film is. That is why the first film blew.

Mummy.......c'mon....anything but that one

Adventure not sci-fi.

That is all I meant.

k

I thnk that maybe it would have been better to have done this kind of thing as a totally new character instead of Croft: Digital pinup girl.. it kind of got it off on the wrong foot.

Nah, I doubt that. The problems with a production like this can easily be seen by the amount of writers: the more writers, the worse it is. Same with the Flintstones and some others.
Jolie was definately the embodiment of Croft, she did well and acted well. The script just sucked.
I agree that they should not have so much supernatural stuff in it. It's gotta be a good thriller, I can take a weird monster or two, but it takes a real villain of flesh and blood and somehow related to Croft to make it worthwhile.
It has lots of potential, too bad producers hooked their claws into it.

Then again, as long as she runs a lot, I like it!

I thought that the first movie had it's problems too, but for all the people saying that it sucked, well...I'd just like to say I think that Lord of the Rings was the worst crap I'd seen in a long time, and the last two star wars movies really didn't lift my skirt either. I got real excited about Ep. II, with Jango fett and all, but it was kind of a let down.