PDA

View Full Version : What was Amanda intending to do with the dais?


Minimus
05-09-09, 23:24
In the cutscene Answers Breed Questions, Amanda Evert says to Lara Croft:

Amanda: You idiot! You ruined everything!
Lara: All these years I blamed myself, and it was you. You killed her!
Amanda: Killed her? She's not dead! She went where I was supposed to go where you could have gone.
Lara: Make sense right this second or I swear I'll execute you where you stand.
Amanda: I told you to pull out the sword. I told you...

Amanda says that Lara ruined everything. So - what was she going to do? Amanda was supposed to go to Helheim? Yet she though she could send Lara there?

I'm really confused :confused:

]{eith
05-09-09, 23:27
Amanda didn't know the portal led to Helheim - she believed it led to Avalon = paradise. So it's lucky for both of them that Lara didn't pull out the sword.

Although - the dais in Nepal led to Helheim and the one there led back to Nepal so maybe the dais in Bolivia and England led somewhere else.

Super Badnik
05-09-09, 23:33
Well, Amanda is obessed with Mythology and exposing these supernatrual forces, the ideas of which forced away by science. It's just her obessesion and as ]{eith said, she didn't know that it actually led to a hell hole.

Minimus
05-09-09, 23:49
{eith;4001430']
Although - the dais in Nepal led to Helheim and the one there led back to Nepal so maybe the dais in Bolivia and England led somewhere else.

I thought the dais in Helheim took them to Nepal because the most recent dais used was the one in Nepal :o
Well, Amanda is obessed with Mythology and exposing these supernatrual forces, the ideas of which forced away by science. It's just her obessesion and as ]{eith said, she didn't know that it actually led to a hell hole.

Hmm so she was really so obsessed that she wanted to go and possibly stay forever in Avalon, the place that she believe was Paradise? Wow.

So why did she tell Lara to pull out the sword? To get rid of her, I presume. Even if it was, as she believed, Paradise :pi:

Super Badnik
05-09-09, 23:51
Hmm so she was really so obsessed that she wanted to go and possibly stay forever in Avalon, the place that she believe was Paradise? Wow.

So why did she tell Lara to pull out the sword? To get rid of her, I presume. Even if it was, as she believed, Paradise :pi:I dunno, by this point there was no way Amanda was gonna remove the sword and fully use it's portal. It was either Lara experience it or the dais is destroyed and it's secrets would be lost forever, as it explodes if the sword is not removed.

jeffareid
06-09-09, 01:53
So wouldn't this mean that the Portal at Nepal would have exploded if Lara's mother hadn't pulled the sword? Also since Lara's mother pulled the sword, then why did the portal explode anyway?

What's the point of a one use, one path, only portal?

Why did the portal enable a communcation time link back to the portal at Nepal?

Will future Lara find another portal that also time travels back to the original Nepal portal and reset the time line, changing the time line so none of this ever happens?

What if Lara finds a portal that time links back to the days soon after the portals were created, will Lara get stuck in the past?

Why did George Lucas kill off Padme in episode 3, instead of explaining why Padme chose to go with Leah intead of Luke as mentioned in episode 6?

It's called "artistic license", the writer / director / changes the rules along the way, and the audience is just suppose to ignore the inconsistency in the story line.

Uzi master
06-09-09, 01:57
the dais in nepal leads to helhiem and vice verca so bolivia or england could be similar, I just wonder how king arthur got the sword in the first place...

Minimus
06-09-09, 02:44
So wouldn't this mean that the Portal at Nepal would have exploded if Lara's mother hadn't pulled the sword? Also since Lara's mother pulled the sword, then why did the portal explode anyway?

It didn't explode, but it did break. I guess it caused a malfunction on the other end with Lara?

What's the point of a one use, one path, only portal?

Otherwise it wouldn't be rare, everybody would be using it ;)

Why did the portal enable a communcation time link back to the portal at Nepal?

Think of the pillars as the numbers on a phone. Lara pressed them in a combination to contact a specific time and place.

Will future Lara find another portal that also time travels back to the original Nepal portal and reset the time line, changing the time line so none of this ever happens?

No, the one in Bolivia was the last working one (excluding the one in Helheim). And plus, Lara could never do that. It'd change her whole life, and she wouldn't be the woman she is today :)


What if Lara finds a portal that time links back to the days soon after the portals were created, will Lara get stuck in the past?

You're thinking too much into it ;)

Why did George Lucas kill off Padme in episode 3, instead of explaining why Padme chose to go with Leah intead of Luke as mentioned in episode 6?

It's called "artistic license", the writer / director / changes the rules along the way, and the audience is just suppose to ignore the inconsistency in the story line.

:confused:

Uzi master
06-09-09, 02:50
the very first telephone! "get your very own dais today! its the only way to keep in touch with your friends in other times! warning may explode or send you to hellhiem"

the ancient
06-09-09, 09:24
In TRU Lara sais to Natla: It was you ho told Amanda about Avalon. So Natla must have sais to Amanda:avalon is a paradise so get there and be happy for ever or something :D
Good question

Minimus
06-09-09, 11:37
the very first telephone! "get your very own dais today! its the only way to keep in touch with your friends in other times! warning may explode or send you to hellhiem"

:vlol: :D
In TRU Lara sais to Natla: It was you ho told Amanda about Avalon. So Natla must have sais to Amanda:avalon is a paradise so get there and be happy for ever or something :D
Good question

I was thinking that :p

Also, in Legend, Amanda says "I've been all over, and I'm going to places you can't even conceive of". I assume Avalon was one of the places she was talking about :D

amore-guy
06-09-09, 13:01
Thats a really nice thread:eek: :D:D
like everyone said before Natla lied on Amanda (and Lara)
just to achieve her goals

Dennis's Mom
06-09-09, 18:24
Why did George Lucas kill off Padme in episode 3, instead of explaining why Padme chose to go with Leah intead of Luke as mentioned in episode 6?

That drives me batty too. It was stupid to have her die in Ep. 3. No reason for it at all. :mad:

I'm convinced that the TRU story was not supposed to be the end of Legend. I think it was a stand alone story that they hastily modified at some point during production to incorporate and finish the Legend arc. There's just too many inconsistencies for it to be otherwise. If you look at how they built the story of Legend, and how it ended, it goes off onto a tangent.

This is the problem with episodic storytelling that passes through multiple hands.

Uzi master
06-09-09, 19:03
well I'd say otherwise considering how its built up, not to mention Amanda had Natla Technologies crates in the final fight.

GenyaArikado
06-09-09, 19:16
:vlol: :D


I was thinking that :p

Also, in Legend, Amanda says "I've been all over, and I'm going to places you can't even conceive of". I assume Avalon was one of the places she was talking about :D


for some reason that line makes Amanda sound a little lesbian, specially now that we know that she had Natla in a giant glass tube

krycekuva
06-09-09, 20:28
{eith;4001430']...

Although - the dais in Nepal led to Helheim and the one there led back to Nepal so maybe the dais in Bolivia and England led somewhere else.


not really... lara had to reconfire the portal in order for it to go into an specific place.

she touched the one in nepal as a child, and by pressing that pillar the configuration change from final point B to final point H. thats why in bolivia she had to touch all pillar in order for them to match with the nepal one, and travel to the same place from nepal. H as she thought. what seemed to be wrong was the fact that once having a start point B(1) you couldnt open a second start point B(2),... which means that there would be 2 starting points in different time spaces connecting to the same final point H. or maybe the dias were really mesed up and half broken.

the helhim one was already set to nepal because it was the way in from which amelia appeared. they only had to activate it in order to return. and not reconfigure it...

]{eith
06-09-09, 22:03
not really... lara had to reconfire the portal in order for it to go into an specific place.

she touched the one in nepal as a child, and by pressing that pillar the configuration change from final point B to final point H. thats why in bolivia she had to touch all pillar in order for them to match with the nepal one, and travel to the same place from nepal. H as she thought. what seemed to be wrong was the fact that once having a start point B(1) you couldnt open a second start point B(2),... which means that there would be 2 starting points in different time spaces connecting to the same final point H. or maybe the dias were really mesed up and half broken.

the helhim one was already set to nepal because it was the way in from which amelia appeared. they only had to activate it in order to return. and not reconfigure it...

Good point. :tmb: I had forgotten about that.

Mytly
06-09-09, 22:16
I'm convinced that the TRU story was not supposed to be the end of Legend. I think it was a stand alone story that they hastily modified at some point during production to incorporate and finish the Legend arc. There's just too many inconsistencies for it to be otherwise. If you look at how they built the story of Legend, and how it ended, it goes off onto a tangent.

This is the problem with episodic storytelling that passes through multiple hands.
I think that makes sense. The TRU story has almost no connections with Legend's except superficial ones: Lara finds her mother in one cutscene; the dias in another cutscene; and the inclusion of Amanda. The former two definitely have a "tacked on at the last minute" feel, and the Amanda character could just as easily have been any other rival of Lara's. The major focus of TRU was the whole Thor-Underworlds arc, none of which has anything to do with anything in Legend. And the whole focus of legend - i.e. the Excalibur-Diases business - was conveniently forgotten.

the very first telephone! "get your very own dais today! its the only way to keep in touch with your friends in other times! warning may explode or send you to hellhiem"
:vlol:

I like the fine print. ;)

Minimus
07-09-09, 06:26
for some reason that line makes Amanda sound a little lesbian, specially now that we know that she had Natla in a giant glass tube

:vlol:Lol!
Thats a really nice thread:eek: :D:D
like everyone said before Natla lied on Amanda (and Lara)
just to achieve her goals

I think so too :)



I'm understanding everyone so far :)

TombRaiderFan.
07-09-09, 07:41
By reading this thread I'm realizing so many things I had not thought about while playing Legend.
The whole King Arthur myth and the dias story had so much potential left in it, but nooo, they had to change it to Thor's Hammah. :rolleyes: I don't see why they did it...

scremanie
07-09-09, 08:10
Travel to paradise...

aussie500
07-09-09, 10:10
In TRU Lara sais to Natla: It was you ho told Amanda about Avalon. So Natla must have sais to Amanda:avalon is a paradise so get there and be happy for ever or something :D
Good question

Why would Amanda be remotely interested in paradise, she was after knowledge, I do not believe Amanda ever mentioned Avalon as being a paradise.

By reading this thread I'm realizing so many things I had not thought about while playing Legend.
The whole King Arthur myth and the dias story had so much potential left in it, but nooo, they had to change it to Thor's Hammah. :rolleyes: I don't see why they did it...

Well Lara went and blew up the dais, then decides she did after all want to go to Avalon. And as Lara has said on a few occasions, she likes going in the front door, which it seems was reserved for Thor and his/her friends. Besides which each adventure is seperate, Excalibur was TR7 which was finished, Lara had Excalibur and got the answer she was originally after.

They might yet get back to the sleepers at some point, but the swords have most likely finished their part unless Lara can find another dais and is willing to give one (or both) of her swords to someone else to use. By skipping around and giving us pieces of the back story they can keep us guessing as to what the truth is, you never give away a good mystery by explaining everything, you dole it out a few clues at a time. Likely at some point in the future we will realise the truth of what Lara meant when she said "this is what it's always been about".

scremanie
07-09-09, 10:20
The myth for Avalon has always been that it was a paradise... Just because Amanda does not say that it is not a paradise, does not mean that she only wanted knowledge.

She obviously wanted immortality and power, which Avalon was said to give you immortality. Those were her intentions.

It is quiet obvious that she wanted to go to a paradise and not a run down temple beneath the arctic sea..

jeffareid
08-09-09, 08:13
By skipping around and giving us pieces of the back story they can keep us guessing as to what the truth is, you never give away a good mystery by explaining everything, you dole it out a few clues at a time.In this case it's not so much of a mystery as a weak implementation of the storyline. The portals proved to be a weak link in TRL and TRU as they behaved inconsistently and illogically.

A single use portal doesn't make sense from a basic logic standpoint, and in the actual storyline from TRL. Why didn't Natla show up at the end of TRL since once the portal was used by Amanda or Lara, the portal would no longer be usable?

Then again, plot holes like this also exist in movies, so why expect any more from a game?

the ancient
08-09-09, 18:52
not really... lara had to reconfire the portal in order for it to go into an specific place.

she touched the one in nepal as a child, and by pressing that pillar the configuration change from final point B to final point H. thats why in bolivia she had to touch all pillar in order for them to match with the nepal one, and travel to the same place from nepal. H as she thought. what seemed to be wrong was the fact that once having a start point B(1) you couldnt open a second start point B(2),... which means that there would be 2 starting points in different time spaces connecting to the same final point H. or maybe the dias were really mesed up and half broken.

the helhim one was already set to nepal because it was the way in from which amelia appeared. they only had to activate it in order to return. and not reconfigure it...
So if she thouched the pillars in a different way her mother would have gone somewere else ??:confused: does make sense

Minimus
08-09-09, 19:08
So if she thouched the pillars in a different way her mother would have gone somewere else ??:confused: does make sense

Nooo taking out any sword will take you to Avalon (Helheim) and no where else :p

Touching the pillars changes the "other end of the call" :p

Like I said earlier, think of the pillars as numbers on a telephone ;)
A telephone that can get you through to the past and future :pi:

Vermillion
09-09-09, 00:06
By reading this thread I'm realizing so many things I had not thought about while playing Legend.
The whole King Arthur myth and the dias story had so much potential left in it, but nooo, they had to change it to Thor's Hammah. :rolleyes: I don't see why they did it...

I completely agree with this! :)

The Norse mythology and Arthurian-mythology have nothing to do with eachother. So why mix them up? They probably wanted to introduce a cool new weapon (MJOLNIR) and that's why they chose the whole Thor's hammer-thing.

It really didn't have much storyline in it, other then Natla's true intentions. While Legend had so much more potential like TombRaiderfan says. It is obvious that they wanted to introduce Natla again (that's why you saw the crates in Bolivia-redux) but it makes no sense to change the story-line to Thor's hammer. They could have done so much more with the King Arthur-story! Such a shame........:(

Lemmie
09-09-09, 00:38
One of the things that really irritates me about Underworld was the dropping of the Arthurian myth of Avalon, and substituting it for Niflheim and Hellheim and so forth. I think that the plot had promise at the end of Legend; Underworld and to an extent Anniversary killed the story arc completely.

Vermillion
09-09-09, 18:41
Since England is Lara's hometown, the King Arthur-myth fits perfectly with Tomb Raider. They could have introduced the rest of the Arthurian-myth in Legend's sequel (like Merlin, Avalon, more info about the daises and perhaps even Camelot).

I'm still angry about the direction they took with Underworld (I know, I've said it a lot of times now). The gameplay isn't bad, but the storyline and replay-value are almost nonexistend. Also Legend had a lot more variety in environments (jungle,tomb, urban etc.) while Underworld had too much swimming and hellish underworlds (especially towards the end).

It was wrong to choose the title "Tomb Raider: Underworld". Because when the game was anounced I was already thinking like: What kind of name is that? What has an Underworld to do with Excalibur or King Arthur? So I figured it must be an entirely new chapter or something.

I hope the developers read these posts and realise the mistake they've made.

Tommy123
10-09-09, 02:45
She was gonna go to avalon to gain ultimate knowledge. Which was her main goal in life was to obtain it.

Ashnod
19-09-09, 09:19
I completely agree with this! :)

The Norse mythology and Arthurian-mythology have nothing to do with eachother. So why mix them up? They probably wanted to introduce a cool new weapon (MJOLNIR) and that's why they chose the whole Thor's hammer-thing.

It really didn't have much storyline in it, other then Natla's true intentions. While Legend had so much more potential like TombRaiderfan says. It is obvious that they wanted to introduce Natla again (that's why you saw the crates in Bolivia-redux) but it makes no sense to change the story-line to Thor's hammer. They could have done so much more with the King Arthur-story! Such a shame........:(

One of the aspects of the TRL/TRA/TRU trilogy is the monomyth concept: the idea that many things out of mythology are actually tied together by a common past, but the cultures that spawned the stories didn't understand what exactly they were dealing with. Hence the confusion, the lack of true understanding or connection, and seemingly different explanations that have been crafted.

A large case in point is the whole "Excalibur" mythos. TRL reveals that there was never an Excalibur sword, there was something better described as a key for the ancient Dais Network that resembled a sword. The people who uncovered it saw it as a sword, its energy was used as a weapon, and thus it becomes thought of that way from Arthurian times on. But the Dais Network key never was a sword in the way that we know a sword, and as TRL and TRU also demonstrated, there were many Dais Keys and not just one. The one that Arthur happened upon, that Lara reconstructed in TRL, was called Excalibur by people in Arthurian times and thus that is why we refer to it as such.

I don't think there were ever any plans to carry the Arthurian concept beyond introducing the monomyth. The monomyth idea carries over from Arthurian mythology into Norse mythology where technology from the ancient world is mistaken for something else. In this sense TRU ties into TRL very well: we are looking at stories created by humans to describe something they didn't really understand. Which is in this case, the technology used by the ancients: the Dais Keys, the Gauntlets, the Mjolnir hammer, etc.

We see Daises placed over a locations in the world the same as we find the locations filled with eitr around the world as well, but the different civilizations who uncovered these locations had no knowledge of what these things were or that other locations like them existed throughout the world. So they crafted stories to make some sense out of them, to explain them as best they could with their limited understanding.

Honestly, not much more could have been done with the Arthurian myth any more than could have been done with the Tiwanku myth: the point isn't that these things were real as much as it was they were fictionalizations of something else that even more real than they were. Exploring the truth behind the Dais Network and the Norse artifacts means answering more about Atlantis, the Wheels of Kathar, etc, and this was left deliberately vague as the only known living being who could answer these questions conclusively is now either buried in eitr or dead, depending on how you interpret the end of TRU/Lara's Shadow. How much Amanda has managed to learn on her own or by Natla's teaching is probably extremely limited or even untrue.

All of this was left unanswered at the end of TRU since we are talking about a time period that in theory was several thousand years before any of the great human civilizations that created the mythologies, and finding concrete documentation will be difficult and finding some kind of primer/Rosetta Stone style means of translating the runes would be even more difficult.

In the end, the quest to find Amelia is a means to make the monomyth storyline personal to Lara, and it is the monomyth storyline that drives the setting of the trilogy.

Amanda has her own reasons that are also personal: touched by the Wraith Stone, she is just as altered by the experience as young Lara was touching the Dais Stones, and both of them cannot rest until they get the answers they are seeking.

What would Amanda have done had she been able to use the Dais Network? Even she doesn't know that. She has a yearning that she doesn't even know the right questions to ask. All she knows is that she wants to know more, and that part of her answers lie on the other side of the Looking Glass. It's not something she is capable of moving past any more than Lara is.

It's also impossible to know how much of Amanda's knowledge of Avalon/Helheim is self-discovered and how much of it was fed to her from Natla. The Tiwanku ruin in Peru where Amanda obtained the Wraith Stone contains references to the Dais Network and even contained a stone replica of the Dais Key, and the hole in the wall of the ruin, a hole that was not there when the chamber was flooded in the Peru flashback, implies that Amanda has seen the the areas prior to leaving the ruin that Lara rediscovered years later.

The remarks in TRU that Natla told Amanda everything are largely conjecture on Lara's part. We know that Natla obviously misled Amanda or withheld knowledge during their time together, but how much Amanda knew prior to uncovering Natla in the Atlantean ruin is unknown.

Minimus
19-09-09, 10:05
^

Best answer ever.

Vermillion
19-09-09, 10:25
One of the aspects of the TRL/TRA/TRU trilogy is the monomyth concept: the idea that many things out of mythology are actually tied together by a common past, but the cultures that spawned the stories didn't understand what exactly they were dealing with. Hence the confusion, the lack of true understanding or connection, and seemingly different explanations that have been crafted.

A large case in point is the whole "Excalibur" mythos. TRL reveals that there was never an Excalibur sword, there was something better described as a key for the ancient Dais Network that resembled a sword. The people who uncovered it saw it as a sword, its energy was used as a weapon, and thus it becomes thought of that way from Arthurian times on. But the Dais Network key never was a sword in the way that we know a sword, and as TRL and TRU also demonstrated, there were many Dais Keys and not just one. The one that Arthur happened upon, that Lara reconstructed in TRL, was called Excalibur by people in Arthurian times and thus that is why we refer to it as such.

I don't think there were ever any plans to carry the Arthurian concept beyond introducing the monomyth. The monomyth idea carries over from Arthurian mythology into Norse mythology where technology from the ancient world is mistaken for something else. In this sense TRU ties into TRL very well: we are looking at stories created by humans to describe something they didn't really understand. Which is in this case, the technology used by the ancients: the Dais Keys, the Gauntlets, the Mjolnir hammer, etc.

We see Daises placed over a locations in the world the same as we find the locations filled with eitr around the world as well, but the different civilizations who uncovered these locations had no knowledge of what these things were or that other locations like them existed throughout the world. So they crafted stories to make some sense out of them, to explain them as best they could with their limited understanding.

Honestly, not much more could have been done with the Arthurian myth any more than could have been done with the Tiwanku myth: the point isn't that these things were real as much as it was they were fictionalizations of something else that even more real than they were. Exploring the truth behind the Dais Network and the Norse artifacts means answering more about Atlantis, the Wheels of Kathar, etc, and this was left deliberately vague as the only known living being who could answer these questions conclusively is now either buried in eitr or dead, depending on how you interpret the end of TRU/Lara's Shadow. How much Amanda has managed to learn on her own or by Natla's teaching is probably extremely limited or even untrue.

All of this was left deliberately vague since we are talking about a time period that in theory was several thousand years before any of the great human civilizations that created the mythologies, and finding concrete documentation will be difficult and finding some kind of primer/Rosetta Stone style means of translating the runes would be even more difficult.

In the end, the quest to find Amelia is a means to make the monomyth storyline personal to Lara, and it is the monomyth storyline that drives the setting of the trilogy.

Amanda has her own reasons that are also personal: touched by the Wraith Stone, she is just as altered by the experience as young Lara was touching the Dais Stones, and both of them cannot reset until they get the answers they are seeking.

What would Amanda have done had she been able to use the Dais Network? Even she doesn't know that. She has a yearning that she doesn't even know the right questions to ask. All she knows is that she wants to know more, and that part of her answers lie on the other side of the Looking Glass. It's not something she is capable of moving past any more than Lara is.

It's also impossible to know how much of Amanda's knowledge of Avalon/Helheim is self-discovered and how much of it was fed to her from Natla. The Tiwanku ruin in Peru where Amanda obtained the Wraith Stone contains references to the Dais Network and even contained a stone replica of the Dais Key, and the hole in the wall of the ruin, a hole that was not there when the chamber was flooded in the Peru flashback, implies that Amanda has seen the the areas prior to leaving the ruin that Lara rediscovered years later.

The remarks in TRU that Natla told Amanda everything are largely conjecture on Lara's part. We know that Natla obviously misled Amanda or withheld knowledge during their time together, but how much Amanda knew prior to uncovering Natla in the Atlantean ruin is unknown.

Well, in my opinion the Excalibur (or key as you call it) can be used both as a key and as a weapon. It depends on what the founder of the artefact wants to do with it. Because when you find a Dais with the sword in it, you have the option to put it in completely (and activating the looking glass) or taking out the sword and take it with you. Because once the portal is activated, there nothing else to do then taking out the sword and be transported (like we saw with young Lara in Nepal). So once you're in Helheim, you could actually keep using the sword to fight off the thralls (because the sword is transported with you).

The things you've explained above are mostly your own speculations (unless it has all been explained in some kind of book published by the scriptwriters). Because there are still enough plotholes in Underworld that aren't explained. Here are the things that in my opinion should have been answered:

1. Do all the Daises in the world transport you just to Helheim and back to the location of the original Dais? Or do they also have the ability to go to other places like Atlantis (or maybe even the actual Avalon) or to a different Dais (for example, from Bolivia to Nepal). Because we saw that lara could change the symbols by touching the stones (TR: Legend).

2. What's with the timeloop in Legend where Lara could look back in the past through the looking glass and even infuence the past? (ending-Bolivia Redux TR: Legend). That didn't really make much sence to me, because there couldn't have been a same Lara in the future that (along with Amanda) made Amelia pull out the sword.

3. Is Avalon and Helheim truly one and the same or did Natla just made that up just to get to the Jormungandr-device? Same goes for Amelia, she could have been another one of Natla's creations and the real Amelia could have been in the real Avalon.

4. Why did the ancients built a device (jormungandr) that could destroy the whole world in the first place?

5. Is Natla dead or not? It hasn't been explained at the ending in Underworld (Natla just fell in the either) and according to Crystal Dynamics, the Xbox360-exclusive downloadable content (Beneath the Ashes and Lara's Shadow) didn't alter the storyline of Underworld. So if she didn't die by falling into the either, why would she die by a small pool of either?

6. Are Amanda and Lara still enemies? Because at the ending in Underworld they weren't enemies or friends. Amanda just walked away. So what's gonna happen between them after this? Also the alternative ending with Amanda trying to throw a rock at Lara but gets shot in the leg would have been better.
At least then it's explained that Amanda is still trying to kill Lara. Now we've got an ending that didn't explain anything!!

Ashnod
19-09-09, 11:10
Well, in my opinion the Excalibur (or key as you call it) can be used both as a key and as a weapon. It depends on what the founder of the artefact wants to do with it. Because when you find a Dais with the sword in it, you have the option to put it in completely (and activating the looking glass) or taking out the sword and take it with you. Because once the portal is activated, there nothing else to do then taking out the sword and be transported (like we saw with young Lara in Nepal). So once you're in Helheim, you could actually keep using the sword to fight off the thralls (because the sword is transported with you).

The things you've explained above are mostly your own speculations (unless it has all been explained in some kind of book published by the scriptwriters). Because there are still enough plotholes in Underworld that aren't explained. Here are the things that in my opinion should have been answered:

1. Do all the Daises in the world transport you just to Helheim and back to the location of the original Dais? Or do they also have the ability to go to other places like Atlantis (or maybe even the actual Avalon) or to a different Dais (for example, from Bolivia to Nepal). Because we saw that lara could change the symbols by touching the stones (TR: Legend).

2. What's with the timeloop in Legend where Lara could look back in the past through the looking glass and even infuence the past? (ending-Bolivia Redux TR: Legend). That didn't really make much sence to me, because there couldn't have been a same Lara in the future that (along with Amanda) made Amelia pull out the sword.

3. Is Avalon and Helheim truly one and the same or did Natla just made that up just to get to the Jormungandr-device? Same goes for Amelia, she could have been another one of Natla's creations and the real Amelia could have been in the real Avalon.

4. Why did the ancients built a device (jormungandr) that could destroy the whole world in the first place?

5. Is Natla dead or not? It hasn't been explained at the ending in Underworld (Natla just fell in the either) and according to Crystal Dynamics, the Xbox360-exclusive downloadable content (Beneath the Ashes and Lara's Shadow) didn't alter the storyline of Underworld. So if she didn't die by falling into the either, why would she die by a small pool of either?

6. Are Amanda and Lara still enemies? Because at the ending in Underworld they weren't enemies or friends. Amanda just walked away. So what's gonna happen between them after this? Also the alternative ending with Amanda trying to throw a rock at Lara but gets shot in the leg would have been better.
At least then it's explained that Amanda is still trying to kill Lara. Now we've got an ending that didn't explain anything!!

Most of what I've said is supported by either in-game reference or Eric Lindstrom's answers. Saying that though..to answer your questions as best as possible given that yes, so much was left unanswered.

1: This is as you said, unknown. We queried Eric on this, and he all he said was essentially that we have pretty much figured it out or are on the right track. We know that touching the stones is required, and he seemed to confirm that the stones determine the destination. If the destination can be programmed, one Dais could theoretically connect to any other Dais. But since he wouldn't come out and just SAY that, take that as you will.

2: It doesn't make much sense to most of us, either. The accepted explanation is that the Dais Network crosses time as much as it does space, but how or why or what its capabilities are remain unexplained.

3: I want to say there is something in game to dispute that, but the only evidence that we have is that Natla could not get into Helheim on her own or she would not have needed Lara to obtain Mjolnir. The story as presented has Lara entering Helheim proper before Natla does, and finds Amelia before Natla is there, so it is highly unlikely Natla would have any means to put an Amelia-Thrall there prior to Lara entering the room. Natla's comments to Lara later, that she heard what happened to Amelia Croft and knew it could motivation for Richard Croft support the idea that she couldn't actually get to Amelia on her own.

The second part of this question, is Avalon and Helheim one and the same? All evidence we have point to it being yes, it is. Amelia's presence, Natla's inability to actually use the Dais Network without Lara or Amanda's help, etc. It seems very unlikely that there is any Avalon other than Helheim: again this is the monomyth giving two names and two myths to the same actual location.

4: Complete unknown. We could theorize endlessly about this, but there is no known cause for its construction. Liken it if you will to having our society fall, and a primitive culture suddenly discovering our nuclear stockpile several thousand years later. They would have no idea how we built it, how we knew how to build it, or why on earth we would have created something so destructive that the world would likely end were it ever used.

5: Natla's fate is unknown, but the leading evidence points to her death. Her features are scarred similar to the Amelia thrall's, implying that her disfigurement was the result of the eitr submersion more so than the Mjolnir impact. If we assume that the eitr submersion hurt her, she survived because she didn't stay submerged for long. Trapped in the rubble, she would have no way to avoid further injury. It could also be that Natla could drown in it, that her immortality does not extend to breathing. Perhaps she is going to die of the wounds caused by Mjolnir since the machine that would allow her to heal has been ruined.

Now, saying that...IIRC the Prima Official guide says something along the lines of in the end, Natla is "buried" in the ruins of Helheim, which is completely ambiguous given her immortality. She survived being "buried" under the Atlantean Pyramid with lava flooding the ruins, so it's possible that the "make sure Natla suffers" line uttered in Beneath the Ashes is meant to imply that Natla lives but is suffering constant agony.

Eric's comments on the matter seem to imply that Natla's death was intended, but there was no way he could comment one way or another because another developer might decide to revisit the story later.

6: Again, the dynamics of their relationship isn't fully known at this point after the Helheim escape. The developers as best we can tell did not use the deleted ending because they wanted some peaceful resolution to Amanda and Lara's conflict. Said resolution is probably best understood as no longer at each other's throats but probably not going to have tea anytime soon.

Vermillion
19-09-09, 16:35
Most of what I've said is supported by either in-game reference or Eric Lindstrom's answers. Saying that though..to answer your questions as best as possible given that yes, so much was left unanswered.

1: This is as you said, unknown. We queried Eric on this, and he all he said was essentially that we have pretty much figured it out or are on the right track. We know that touching the stones is required, and he seemed to confirm that the stones determine the destination. If the destination can be programmed, one Dais could theoretically connect to any other Dais. But since he wouldn't come out and just SAY that, take that as you will.

2: It doesn't make much sense to most of us, either. The accepted explanation is that the Dais Network crosses time as much as it does space, but how or why or what its capabilities are remain unexplained.

3: I want to say there is something in game to dispute that, but the only evidence that we have is that Natla could not get into Helheim on her own or she would not have needed Lara to obtain Mjolnir. The story as presented has Lara entering Helheim proper before Natla does, and finds Amelia before Natla is there, so it is highly unlikely Natla would have any means to put an Amelia-Thrall there prior to Lara entering the room. Natla's comments to Lara later, that she heard what happened to Amelia Croft and knew it could motivation for Richard Croft support the idea that she couldn't actually get to Amelia on her own.

The second part of this question, is Avalon and Helheim one and the same? All evidence we have point to it being yes, it is. Amelia's presence, Natla's inability to actually use the Dais Network without Lara or Amanda's help, etc. It seems very unlikely that there is any Avalon other than Helheim: again this is the monomyth giving two names and two myths to the same actual location.

4: Complete unknown. We could theorize endlessly about this, but there is no known cause for its construction. Liken it if you will to having our society fall, and a primitive culture suddenly discovering our nuclear stockpile several thousand years later. They would have no idea how we built it, how we knew how to build it, or why on earth we would have created something so destructive that the world would likely end were it ever used.

5: Natla's fate is unknown, but the leading evidence points to her death. Her features are scarred similar to the Amelia thrall's, implying that her disfigurement was the result of the eitr submersion more so than the Mjolnir impact. If we assume that the eitr submersion hurt her, she survived because she didn't stay submerged for long. Trapped in the rubble, she would have no way to avoid further injury. It could also be that Natla could drown in it, that her immortality does not extend to breathing. Perhaps she is going to die of the wounds caused by Mjolnir since the machine that would allow her to heal has been ruined.

Now, saying that...IIRC the Prima Official guide says something along the lines of in the end, Natla is "buried" in the ruins of Helheim, which is completely ambiguous given her immortality. She survived being "buried" under the Atlantean Pyramid with lava flooding the ruins, so it's possible that the "make sure Natla suffers" line uttered in Beneath the Ashes is meant to imply that Natla lives but is suffering constant agony.

Eric's comments on the matter seem to imply that Natla's death was intended, but there was no way he could comment one way or another because another developer might decide to revisit the story later.

6: Again, the dynamics of their relationship isn't fully known at this point after the Helheim escape. The developers as best we can tell did not use the deleted ending because they wanted some peaceful resolution to Amanda and Lara's conflict. Said resolution is probably best understood as no longer at each other's throats but probably not going to have tea anytime soon.

Okay, sorry for doubting your sources Ashnod. A lot of people here speculate stuff they make up on their own.

But as you can see, these are very important aspects of the game that should've been answered in my opinion. TR: Legend left some stuff open and I expected them to be answered in Underworld, but it never happened. So I was kinda disappointed. Legend had an open ending that made you very curious to the sequel. Underworld also had a pretty open ending but left me unsatisfied. I guess it was about Lara getting her closure about what happened to her mother (wich in my opinion was a wrong fate to give Amelia, since we have been searching for her in 3 games).

Also, I still think it was a wrong decision to combine Avalon and Helheim as being one and the same place. Because according to the myth, Avalon should've been a paradise-like place with apples growing and lots of greenery. While Helheim was a hellish place where you wouldn't want to be. Yes, lots of myths have a lot of thinks in common because they refer to similair places. For example, a lot of country's have Legends about swords in stones and powerful artefacts. Lara also said so herself: Various myths use different names, but they all apply to the same remnants of the ancient world. Avalon and Helheim are completely opposite, so I think that was a wrong move. Why would they make a portal to transport you to Helheim anyway? Doesn't make sence. I guess King Arthur realized that the portal brought you to Helheim and didn't want to go to such a hellish place. So he chose to be in that masoleum in England instead (my favorite part of the game btw). That would also explain why Excalibur was scattered in pieces around the world, so that no one would go there. This was theorized by someone in a topic I made a while ago.

Thanks a lot for the explanations Ashnod, and if you can get anymore info about all of this from Eric Lindstrom or Toby Gard, I would appreciate it. I would like to know more:)

Liquid Fire
20-09-09, 12:39
To add to the Helheim is Avalon points, isn't it completely possible that Helheim isn't Avalon?

When Amelia went into the dais, it was just assumed that she went to avalon. Natla could well have gone along with this story so that she could reach Jormangandr for her Seventh Age. And Natla's words are always filtered by her own agendas, so you can never take what Natla says as truth.

The dais travel network, could well go to Avalon but no one understands that technology anymore, except maybe Natal but she is currently being tormented for eternity by the doppel in a pool of Eitr. So no concrete answers anytime soon.

Minimus
20-09-09, 14:32
Well Amelia was there so... it must be :p

Unless you meant it had nothing to do with the real avalon? I'm confusing myself here!


but she is currently being tormented for eternity by the doppel in a pool of Eitr.

Where did you get this? Jacqueline Natla is dead, the eitr Lara smashed her into made her mortal. :)

Ashnod
20-09-09, 17:49
Well Amelia was there so... it must be :p

Unless you meant it had nothing to do with the real avalon? I'm confusing myself here!

Where did you get this? Jacqueline Natla is dead, the eitr Lara smashed her into made her mortal. :)

1: The possibility that Avalon and Helheim are two separate places is unlikely. As you said, Amelia's presence in Helheim pretty much confirms that this is exactly where she went. We can safely assume as well that Natla is able to confirm this by the alignment of Dais Stones - Amanda would have been able to provide her pictures of the Bolivia Dais's stones post-Legend off-camera so to speak.

For Amelia to have originally gone to Avalon, and for Avalon and Helheim to be different places, Amelia would have had to use the Nepal Dais to get to Avalon, and then a Dais in Avalon to get to Helheim, probably in an attempt to return to Nepal. Had this happened, it is extremely unlikely Natla, Amanda, or Lara would have had any idea where Amelia ended up since there would have been a two-Dais transmit.

2: I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "eitr smash." I'm assuming you mean that getting with Mjolnir made her mortal, as I don't think that the eitr itself would have any quality that would make Natla mortal.

Saying that, I agree that it does appear that Natla is dead. In fiction, however, unless a corpse is produced, I will never believe the immortal enemy is actually dead. Lara's Shadow faded to black instead of giving us that, so I'm not going to say that she is. Ergo, we last saw her suffering in Lara's Shadow, but she was still alive. I have no reason to assume otherwise unless we see her corpse.

Uzi master
20-09-09, 17:54
remember the symbols? well if it was a different combination it may have brought her to Avalon.

Ashnod
20-09-09, 18:03
remember the symbols? well if it was a different combination it may have brought her to Avalon.

I'm taking the symbols into account.

If young Lara's original pressing of the symbols took Amelia to Avalon and not to Helheim, there would have been no way for any of the cast to know that Amelia was now in Helheim instead of Avalon.

Legend Lara used the same symbol alignment in Bolivia as she did in Nepal. Amanda could have provided that alignment to Natla.

In truth, Natla probably visited the Nepal Dais prior to approaching Richard Croft for his help in tracking down the Norse artifacts. She knew where Amelia went based on the alignment of the broken Dais in Nepal.

Had Amelia gone anywhere else, a second trip through the Looking Glass, Natla and Lara would have no idea where she went. They would have needed to check the "Avalon" Dais for the symbol alignment Amelia used and hope that nobody else in "Avalon" had used it after Amelia.

Minimus
20-09-09, 18:38
2: I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "eitr smash." I'm assuming you mean that getting with Mjolnir made her mortal, as I don't think that the eitr itself would have any quality that would make Natla mortal.

Saying that, I agree that it does appear that Natla is dead. In fiction, however, unless a corpse is produced, I will never believe the immortal enemy is actually dead. Lara's Shadow faded to black instead of giving us that, so I'm not going to say that she is. Ergo, we last saw her suffering in Lara's Shadow, but she was still alive. I have no reason to assume otherwise unless we see her corpse.


Well considering the thralls appear from the eitr, it would make sense for Natla to become mortal from the eitr transforming her body into a delicate mortal. :)

Vermillion
20-09-09, 19:58
Well considering the thralls appear from the eitr, it would make sense for Natla to become mortal from the eitr transforming her body into a delicate mortal. :)

Yes, this could very well be true. Because Natla obviously was transformed into a thrall after falling into the eitr (just like what happened to Amelia) but because she is an immortal god her mind still remained intact.

Ashnod
20-09-09, 22:39
Yes, this could very well be true. Because Natla obviously was transformed into a thrall after falling into the eitr (just like what happened to Amelia) but because she is an immortal god her mind still remained intact.


Obviously is a very subjective term in this case. We don't know that she was a thrall. She had a thrall-like appearance, most likely due to her time in the Eitr. It makes little sense for her to be a thrall and retain her immortality or her sanity.

Had she actually been a thrall, I could see Ms. Ganger using the "Ohk Eshivar" phrase on her just as an added point of revenge now that Ms. Ganger was free of its power, herself.

Minimus
21-09-09, 18:04
Had she actually been a thrall, I could see Ms. Ganger using the "Ohk Eshivar" phrase on her just as an added point of revenge now that Ms. Ganger was free of its power, herself.

I don't think Lara (a.k.a. Lara's doppelganger) would torment Natla for all eternity, if she survived being submerged in the eitr for so long seeing as she became mortal.


Obviously is a very subjective term in this case. We don't know that she was a thrall. She had a thrall-like appearance, most likely due to her time in the Eitr. It makes little sense for her to be a thrall and retain her immortality or her sanity.

The eitr did give her that appearance ;) and I wonder why Amelia (thrall) still had loving feelings for Lara? (When she was about to embrace Lara, and she had one arm out resembling her reaching out)

:confused:

Vermillion
21-09-09, 23:32
I don't think Lara (a.k.a. Lara's doppelganger) would torment Natla for all eternity, if she survived being submerged in the eitr for so long seeing as she became mortal.



The eitr did give her that appearance ;) and I wonder why Amelia (thrall) still had loving feelings for Lara? (When she was about to embrace Lara, and she had one arm out resembling her reaching out)

:confused:

I don't understand why people still think Amelia was about to hug Lara or something. It clearly looked like she was going to attack her. She was just a mindless thrall.

By the way, I was just watching some interviews with Eric Lindstrom on youtube, and people over there are saying that he was fired and is no longer working with Crystal Dynamics. Is this really true? He seemed like a nice and intelligent guy:( who's gonna direct the upcoming Tomb Raider-game now?

Ashnod
22-09-09, 05:41
I don't think Lara (a.k.a. Lara's doppelganger) would torment Natla for all eternity, if she survived being submerged in the eitr for so long seeing as she became mortal.

Again, there is absolutely no proof that the Eitr made her mortal, or that being with Mjolnir made her mortal.



The eitr did give her that appearance ;) and I wonder why Amelia (thrall) still had loving feelings for Lara? (When she was about to embrace Lara, and she had one arm out resembling her reaching out)

:confused:

Even if the Eitr corroded her flesh, that was more than likely the result of it having acidic properties. Natla's flesh is obviously something that can be damaged even if she cannot be killed - hence her surviving the lava pit in TRA but emerging from in toasty. Her wings were shot to pieces by Lara in TRA but they eventually regenerated. In both instances, she was not killed and was not mortal.

It makes very little sense for her to have lost her immortality in the eitr and survive it.

Minimus
22-09-09, 06:40
Again, there is absolutely no proof that the Eitr made her mortal, or that being with Mjolnir made her mortal.




Even if the Eitr corroded her flesh, that was more than likely the result of it having acidic properties. Natla's flesh is obviously something that can be damaged even if she cannot be killed - hence her surviving the lava pit in TRA but emerging from in toasty. Her wings were shot to pieces by Lara in TRA but they eventually regenerated. In both instances, she was not killed and was not mortal.

It makes very little sense for her to have lost her immortality in the eitr and survive it.

Good point :)

Vermillion
22-09-09, 18:03
I didn't feel like editing my above post, but a couple of minutes after I posted it yesterday , I found out that Eric was indeed fired and actually posted here :eek:.

I've read all of his posts. And learned that not everything needs to be answered. You can make your own mind about a lot of the unexplained questions. According to Eric, they intentionally left some things open so you can fill it up with what you think is the right answer. Because Eric doesn't know everything about the story either. They didn't go as deep with the story as I thought. I thought they had an answer outlined for everything. But that's ok, at least now I got my closure:)

Liquid Fire
22-09-09, 18:46
Where did you get this? Jacqueline Natla is dead, the eitr Lara smashed her into made her mortal. :)

Fact: Natla. Cannot. Die.

Minimus
22-09-09, 19:22
I didn't feel like editing my above post, but a couple of minutes after I posted it yesterday , I found out that Eric was indeed fired and actually posted here :eek:.

Aw that's sad :(

Fact: Natla. Cannot. Die.

Read the posts - some believe the eitr made Natla mortal.

Chocola teapot
23-09-09, 16:40
She wanted to go to avalon.

Minimus
23-09-09, 17:21
She wanted to go to avalon.

Elaborate.