Defended Lartis on twitter (tamely, somehow. Idk how since it's twitter) but there was an important point brought up during. Something that I agreed with the person I was "debating" with.
That I think the Louvre scene was technically... tasteless/icky.
Given everything else, it meant to create tension between them right? If memory serves right at least. But the fact is that in that moment Kurtis felt Lara up without consent... the point isn't if she felt bad or was offended but that is just what happened. Even if right after when she turned she seemed kind of awestruck. And even if there were flirty tones in their interactions.
Something that the other person brought up is that that scene technically mischqtacterised Lara which I found interesting. They said they she always fought back in every other instance like that even held at gunpoint, so why not here? Why wait it out?
I wonder if that could be explained away by Kurtis doing some kind of magic?(I don't remember all the things he can do) though if that's the explanation then that's also not good, because that would kind of count as coercion.
And if she did fight back that could've been turned into some cool styff too I think. Maybe even create a proper enemies to lovers vibe.
This all would probably be handled better if Core just got the time and resources to properly make AOD...
See, I am one to keep things real and simple: Lara didn't react negatively to Kurtis' caresses simply because she was attracted physically to him. Because he was designed to be her partner, not just as cooperation in a common mission, but also in emotional and feeling fields. In the past, anyone daring to touch her inappropriately or without regarding her consent would end bruised - take for example Larson in that scene of Tomb Raider Chronicles - but if it didn't happen the same with Kurtis is because Lara did not feel about him in the same way she did with Larson. And we don't need to seek forced arguments to explain what is simple. Besides, Kurtis has not the power to manipulate minds - not in Angel of Darkness, at least - and if he had, he would not do that to Lara, if you take the time to explore the character's mindset and personality - which most of Lartis' haters have never bothered to.
I'm pretty convinced no one loved the Louvre's sequence at first sight - not even me - when it was first time presented in 2003. I remember myself not enjoying it because everyone could see with open eyes that sequence lacked Lara's consentment. But since then I grew and learn to understand context - something Lartis haters didn't bother to. There are several arguments you can use here - first, the narrative of the game wants you to perceive Kurtis as an enemy, a threat, from the beginning of the game to more or less that point in the Louvre, until his real game is disclosed at the airlock sequence in Prague. In this context, Kurtis is meant to revolt you at first.
Secondly, Lara is a very dangerous person, a killing machine and he's no idiot, there's no way he can approach her without use of force/violence to contain her, so he doesn't get hurt. He could use his powers, again, to restrain her, but per the game's narrative those are incredibly strenght-draining for him and yet again, he has a moral code of not abusing them and definitely not with people he doesn't perceive as a foe. Saying this, the only way is to disarm her approaching her without her knowledge. And yes, he could do that without caressing her in an intimate way no one approved first-sight in 2003; but probably he was seeking to make her angry so he would chase after him and out of the Louvre, which would became a death trap for her if he just left her there disarmed and surrounded by Gunderson's men. This is the game's narrative, it's the way they wanted to introduce him, and personally, if in real life someone touched me like that it would be abuse, of course, but it's a videogame and two fictional characters that don't pretend to teach you moral lessons with their interaction, but serve to a fictional narrative. Lara not only didn't feel abused once she learnt what was on the table, but reciprocated in a way that showed, first, that she understood he was deserving of a proper payback, and second, showing him she could play to that game, too.
Finally, I want to remark how incredibly childish and immature sometimes Tomb Raider's fanbase look to me in their stubbornness of not acknowledging Lara's sexuality and personal desire in Angel of Darkness, the first and only time she has showed genuinely emotional/sexual interest in someone. We've spent decades speculating about her sexuality, shipping her with dozens of characters and starting literal fan wars over if she's straight, lesbian or bisexual. I am as done with those speculations as I was in the past, because for me, what goes are what my eyes see, and my eyes see she was obviously attracted to Kurtis, a man, whatever people may say. Pretending she was abused/raped or damaged by the Louvre interaction is actually removing the consent she regained later, when she showed him she was all for the game as well, while he was changing her approach to her, after realizing she was willing to follow the same path as partner in action.
And yes, in the past I've been accused of supporting rape because I've always shipped - and I will always ship - Lartis, but for me this discourse blatantly ignores these reasons I've exposed previously and pretends to keep the eyes shut to the actual game's narrative and what the developers intended for them. That's why I think that debating about this nowadays is a sterile discussion that will only bring more fan wars and gain us nothing, because she's gone, the present and future games have left this narrative aside and whatever Crystal Dynamics is aiming for now will be also sterile in addressing Lara's sexuality. They are cowards and childish as well, and at most have used an ambiguous sapphic innuendo in the reboot to bait the gay fanbase and make them dream about something they have never delivered and will never deliver anyway.
I prefer to stay in 2003 and enjoy my "problematic" ship. It's far more honest and less manipulative and actually not problematic at all, compared with present days. But it's always a pleasure having people come to me to share their impressions, so thank you so much for this ask. I guess it's also good Lartis keeps being discussed in actual 2025, as long as it's not meant to cause more discourse.
