Topic: Gambit Movie News

[hairlesscat]

Let me ask everyone a  question. What do you think is the best way to introduce Gambit into the MCU? Not just for us as fans of him but for general audiences who might not be that familiar with Gambit.


Would it be best to introduce him into a show where they explain his background and his beginnings and show a portion of what he's gone through and then introduce him into the movies and have him around the other characters and part of a "team". While we, the audience, no what his history is but his new allies and teammates don't and aren't sure how much they trust him.


-or-


Introduce him more like we experienced him in the comics. He shows up in the movies and starts working with allies and teammates and we, the audience, don't know much about him like the other characters in the movie. Then as time goes by we learn about his story. Possibly a show or movie comes out later on getting deeper into him.


Basically, do we want to know his backstory before he gets with the X-men so we can understand his past while his teammates can't or do we want him to be mysterious first and then his story comes out later on? Remember, think of this from a general audience perspective and not just as a Gambit fan. It could be interesting for some to genuinely not know what Gambit's agenda is.

Good question. I think I would like for them to build him up in his own series before we ever get to see him interact with the X-Men. I would like for his loyalties not to be entirely clear. Maybe he is on nobody's side and then sides with them. He develops a sort of comraderie with Storm and even a flirtation with Rogue. He and Logan appear to know and dislike each other but it isn't immediately clear how or why. He settles in... only to get close to something he wants to steal and totally betray them. Probably as a final act to pay off his debt to Sinister. Cue the scene with him telling Sinister this is it and swapping stolen goods for a silver vial. Cue Rogue feeling particularly betrayed and pissed off the next time they cross paths (even though it was actually real for him too).

I think for me, the key is that I want to see character growth in Gambit. I want to see him as the all-business, morally grey world-class thief who gets humbled and changed by his experiences. However it happens, I wanna see how bad he was so that I can appreciate how much he has actually changed.

[Icefanatic]

I agree that some studios get it wrong because they concern themselves only with catering to diversity at the expense of everything else. However, I do not agree that BP is some kind of rare exception for woke movies. There are lots of woke movies that have been both commercial and critical successes. I think that people who have a problem with diversity and inclusion will feel it proves the myth because they didn't like diversity and inclusion to begin with. Confirmation bias is real and rears its head whenever these discussions come about. I've literally had people on here try to tell me that BP wasn't a woke movie because it was good and successful. Says a lot, really.

As has been discussed in a few places on this forum recently, there is an evolving meaning happening over time(as thing like that tend to do) for things like 'woke' or 'social justice warrior'. People like Stan Lee or Chris Claremont were advocates for social justice in their days, but far removed from most modern toxic 'SJWs'. My first encounter with the term 'woke' was in it's current pejorative context

I would define a 'modern woke' presentation as advocating for diversity and inclusion with tokenism and pandering, of replacing good characters and characterization with walking after-school specials. Things like that.

BP would definitely meet the 'classic' definition of woke, but not so much the one currently in use by most people.

[bigbarda]

I'm surprised how few people want to see Gambit introduced as a thief. I kind of want to see him as a reoccurring character knicking important stuff before we get to know him better.

As has been discussed in a few places on this forum recently, there is an evolving meaning happening over time(as thing like that tend to do) for things like 'woke' or 'social justice warrior'. People like Stan Lee or Chris Claremont were advocates for social justice in their days, but far removed from most modern toxic 'SJWs'. My first encounter with the term 'woke' was in it's current pejorative context

I would define a 'modern woke' presentation as advocating for diversity and inclusion with tokenism and pandering, of replacing good characters and characterization with walking after-school specials. Things like that.

BP would definitely meet the 'classic' definition of woke, but not so much the one currently in use by most people.

I'm confused as to what and who meets this definition when BP doesn't meet it. I agree with HairlessCat that 'woke' and 'SJW' are terms that get applied to things that an individual does not like and perceives to be a failure, but does not apply to things that they do like and perceive to be a success. It's meaningless as trying to define what 'cool' is.


CC is as 'woke' and 'SJW' as he ever was. He, Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti have all guested on Jay & Miles Explain the X-men, which is hosted by a transgender person and focuses a lot on the queer subtext of the X-men. FabNic's on Twitter making his views on the world known.

[Nekobaghira]

I would totally want thief Gambit. It's his history and I think people would want a follow up film or two. Why not delve into his history.
He was best as an anti-hero and not the love sap we're currently getting. IMO

[Toadman005]

I would totally want thief Gambit. It's his history and I think people would want a follow up film or two. Why not delve into his history.
He was best as an anti-hero and not the love sap we're currently getting. IMO

Agreed. IMO dangerous anti-hero Gambit is the way to go, not love sap with his balls in Rogue's grip.

[Blade3D1]

I like Gambit as the anti-hero.  Its why he became my favorite character to begin with while watching TAS in the 90s.  He was the opposite of Cyclops.


If I had to choose how to introduce him to a wider audience, I think he should start as an antagonist.  A mysterious and powerful foe to be reckoned with (but not evil, just at odds with the goals of other characters).  It would serve for some amazing fanfare, seeing him fight other characters in the X-men. . .  (I’d LOVE a “bang! You dead. ” Against wolverine). 


Then introduce a far more dangerous foe, that aligns their interests.  This is a classic writing trick, but is always effective.  The audience would have immediate respect for Gambits power, because they’ve seen it in action against the protagonists. 


Basically imagine a Vegetta scenario where he slowly becomes apart of the team, but keeping his mystery and keeping people who care for him at arms length.  It makes for great character developments and arcs that align similarly with the comics.

[anya]

I like that idea. I’d only want to start with the backstory childhood stuff if it’s a tv series, where there is more time. If a movie, just use ‘mysterious’ past and Maybe have some reveals as it goes along.


As to the woke vs woke debate, it think it means the old fashion woke, like Claremont, was using female characters before it was ‘cool’ and he wrote them more or less like he did the male characters. He was also thinking bout the storyline, plots, sub-plots and interaction with other characters. Whereas in the female ghostbusters movie (did see it, it wasn’t bad but was very good. Kevin was the highlight, lol) The directed literally said he had the actresses doing improv. So not really paying attention to script, storyline, plots, more depending on the ghostbusters name and the fact that they were doing a ‘good thing’ by having girl ghostbusters. That’s how I was reading it anyway. *shrug*


Back to gambit, I would like a D+ series, but I also want him to be the rest of the X-men as well, not just stuck in ‘the past’ and/or New Orleans. That was one of the things I didn’t like about that leaked script, that is was literally stuck in the past.

[RomeoSvengali]

When Chris Potter was younger, could he have played Gambit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LclhdT-AboU

[purplevit]

When Chris Potter was younger, could he have played Gambit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LclhdT-AboU

I think yes. Loved that interview!


I don`t want to plat Cyclops, I want to play Gambit!

[DonPriceTag]

Here we go again. Us fans putting the cart before the horse! 


We don't even know how mutants will be introduced. Everything depends on where mutants come from. It determines how the X-Men will appear - much less individual characters. There are only a few ways this could happen... like 3.


1. Reality Warping involving Scarlet Witch & Doctor Strange where the main MCU is merged with another. This allows us to get fully-formed characters without having to develop them over the span of 3 to 8 years. A 2nd sub possibility is not merging universes, but again warping reality in a way that creates/activates the x-gene. This could have been done already by way of the infinity stones changing something that leads to aforementioned creation of mutants.


2. Experiment gone wrong that creates/activates the X-gene within the MCU. This is a slower method than above, but will create mutants all at once giving random people powers all over the world/universe. Characters can be fully formed physically and in terms of personality - but just about everyone would be new to their powers.


3. Mutants were always there - just hidden. Similar to the option 1 but without a lick of originality or creativity.


In each of these options Gambit could debut differently. In the case of 1 or 3 - Gambit may already be a member of the X-Men not unlike what we saw in XTAS. Option 2 is probably the most ambitious route and possibly the most character driven of the three. Gambit can already be everything we know him to be. A world class thief, ladies man, adventurer - all that. Being a mutant would be new. Something he'd have to learn to handle. I've got no clue what Marvel's plans are - well, perhaps we're not clueless. By now I believe we all expect some kind of reverse- House of X tomfoolery to go down.

[wantutosigh]

I don't like option 2. All the X-Men characters randomly getting their powers at once when they've already formed who they are creates a lot of problems. A lot of characters origin stories are wrapped up in when their abilities first manifested when they were younger and have matured into adults coming to terms with it and it shaping who they are. Having them already be who they are and all getting their abilities at the same time sounds like a mess that is less interesting for them individually. I mean, does nightcrawler all of a sudden turn blue? Wolverine will not be over 150 years old? How will Mystique, Mr. Sinister or Apocalypse work then? Will other mutants instantly morph into their different appearances and not have to go through growing up being different? It just seems like a disservice to their individual stories. I'll take either 1 or 3.

[DonPriceTag]

I suppose you have a point - if we were talking about a comic book. The MCU so far has all but twisted every origin story. I think the only people that have stuck close to the comics are Cap, the Hulk, and Thor (for the most part). Just about everyone else, including Iron Man has seen an arguably wildly different origin than we're used to. For that matter, many mutant characters CANT be adapted directly because much of their past is tied to a specific point in history. If we base our like/dislike on how closely MCU interprets the character origins - I think we're setting ourselves up for disappointment.


That is unless they go with option 1A or 3. I think 1A works MILES better than 3. 3 is lazy AF and creates a bunch of problems asks the audience to accept that each and every mutant that has ever existed has been hidden. If that's the case - then there's no reason to be upset about characters like Mystique and Wolverine because their origins wouldn't make sense without interacting with other people throughout the decades.


Id expect 30% of the characters we know will be fundamentally different than their comic counterparts (gender, race and age changes). I highly doubt all the origin stories will be exactly as we know them. For instance - I bet my house that Storm will be tied to Wakanda in some way. I'm not tied to any possibility - but if I had to bet I'd say Marvel is leaning towards 1A or 2. 1A, again, is, for the most part, House of M. Option 2 is basically what happened in the Ultimate Marvel Universe, and the MCU has already adapted much of the Ultimate universe already).

[wantutosigh]

I suppose you have a point - if we were talking about a comic book. The MCU so far has all but twisted every origin story. I think the only people that have stuck close to the comics are Cap, the Hulk, and Thor (for the most part). Just about everyone else, including Iron Man has seen an arguably wildly different origin than we're used to. For that matter, many mutant characters CANT be adapted directly because much of their past is tied to a specific point in history. If we base our like/dislike on how closely MCU interprets the character origins - I think we're setting ourselves up for disappointment.

Not only does it hurt the characters individual stories(just about every single one not just a few] but it hurts them collectively. Mutants are supposed to be different from the other superheroes. This is basically like all of them becoming superheroes and supervillains instantly and missing out on a lot of the potential interesting nuance to their situations that sets them apart from the other Marvel characters. I mean, mutants growing up and being affected by the fear and the hatred the world has for the way they were born is a fundamental story component and I don't think it's a good idea to throw that away. That's the stuff people really connect to and where all these metaphors to real life are sprung from. Yeah you could still do the whole "humans fear mutants" thing but I feel you miss out on a key component that is pretty important.


And sure I know individual origin stories can be changed up and what not for movies but, like I said, this is a fundamental change that alters every single character and kind of strips them of some of their identity as a race in the MCU. I personally think the X-Men is something that's very important to get right in the MCU. Them being mutants is one of the reasons we all love and root for them. It is lessened if they become powered up suddenly by a lab accident or something all at the same time. Growing up mutants is something they all have in common no matter what side they're on. That's why the grey area is so understandable(if done right) when a character might flip flop.

That is unless they go with option 1A or 3. I think 1A works MILES better than 3. 3 is lazy AF and creates a bunch of problems asks the audience to accept that each and every mutant that has ever existed has been hidden. If that's the case - then there's no reason to be upset about characters like Mystique and Wolverine because their origins wouldn't make sense without interacting with other people throughout the decades.

Yeah, I mean just pretending the mutants have always been there won't work because there are too many storylines/events/characters that are set in the past. It would take some major plot jiu jitsu to get general audiences to go along with accepting mutants have been around this whole time affecting the universe. Just me personally I could swallow that better than 2 because the X-Men is really what I want to see anyway.


I'll go with 1a. I honestly already thought they were going to use one of the "snaps" as a reality altering moment. Where everyone comes back but mutants now exist and have existed and everyone is used to this world. Or half of everyone is used to history with mutants or something like that. Something could've been done right there. We'll see what happens with the Doctor Strange Multiverse thing. Hope they do that right because the rumors of all the actors coming in to play former versions of their characters seems a bit of a mess.

Id expect 30% of the characters we know will be fundamentally different than their comic counterparts (gender, race and age changes). I highly doubt all the origin stories will be exactly as we know them. For instance - I bet my house that Storm will be tied to Wakanda in some way. I'm not tied to any possibility - but if I had to bet I'd say Marvel is leaning towards 1A or 2. 1A, again, is, for the most part, House of M. Option 2 is basically what happened in the Ultimate Marvel Universe, and the MCU has already adapted much of the Ultimate universe already).

Yeah this is concerning. I am not for changing anyone's race, gender, sexuality, or age(unreasonably). Whichever way the change goes. I don't think it's necessary for the X-Men, who are already diverse enough to check all the boxes. Like I said, I don't mind the little changes to characters origins so they can fit in the mcu a little better but I'm against a blanket changing of all mutant origins.

[RomeoSvengali]

Here's another interview with some of the cast, I love it when Chris says, "I didn't realize the depth of the X-Men animated series, the depth of the characters and the depth of the writing until after it finished it and how those characters were so human and could change, were changing viewer's lives, young and old. So I become much more proud of my involvement with the X-Men as the years went on and I thought and I was Gambit!" And Lenore Zann hugs him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFxEmB7f2fI

[wantutosigh]

Here's another interview with some of the cast, I love it when Chris says, "I didn't realize the depth of the X-Men animated series, the depth of the characters and the depth of the writing until after it finished it and how those characters were so human and could change, were changing viewer's lives, young and old. So I become much more proud of my involvement with the X-Men as the years went on and I thought and I was Gambit!" And Lenore Zann hugs him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFxEmB7f2fI

It'd be great if they could all come back to voice the characters in another show. Chris Potter is still who I hear in my head when I read Gambit. The best Gambit voice by far. I hated whey Tony Daniel's took over in the show and voiced him for video games and stuff. Lenore Zann is my Rogue too.