Well we're going to have to agree to disagree a lot then. I've made my points pretty clear on this. It's simple, if they wind up making Gambit goofy along the lines of Starlord or Ant-Man I will be disappointed.
StarLord and Ant-Man are played by actors who specialise in comedy. The same for Thor- Hemsworth tried playing it serious in the first two Thor movies, but he's more fun as an actor when he's playing to his comedic strengths. If 30-something Daniel Day-Lewis had been cast in the same role with the same script he'd have given a completely different performance.
The snippets of Eric Stolz's performance as Marty McFly are a really good example of the difference casting makes.
And I disagree that Gambit is "goofy af". We can all point to this or that in the comics to support a case. Hell, I can point to specific comics and say Gambit is a sad depressed character who let's others treat him like a jerk. That's not what I want to see in the movies. And a bumbling goofball is not how I want to see him portrayed either. We have enough of that. Gambit is the chance for something different from a character.
I don't think anyone wants him played like Kramer from Seinfeld.
And if you'd payed attention to a lot of content creators, writers, movie producers etc you would pretty clearly see there is nothing secret about it. Ghostbusters(2016), Star Wars, Terminator, Birds of Prey, Charlies Angels, Ocean's 8, the Star Trek Series Discovery and Picard have all suffered for the sake of forcing "progressive" ideas over good plot, story, and characters.
Having an equal amount of female characters to male characters is not being progressive. It's reflecting reality. You can pick out flops like Charlie's Angels or Terminator Dark Fate as examples of wokeness inevitably sinking movies, but every Terminator movie since 1992 has sucked and underperformed at the box office compared to the franchise's name recognition and the blame for 3 & 4 didn't focus on too many men and robots. Those movies sucking is a lot more to do with incompetence at the senior executive level across the film industry (see:
Wild Wild West and the guy at Fox who just didn't like the look of Galactus).
Birds of Prey is actually an enjoyable enough film, but whoever decided to release it under that title rather than 'Harley Quinn (and the Birds of Prey') is an idiot. 'Birds of Prey' has no name recognition. Most movie goers are low information and go by the poster and the title.
The MCU has been criticized for having too many straight white male heroes and not enough diversity. They have talked about catering more towards those criticisms and I have legitimate concern on how it's going to affect Gambit's character and place in things going forward. I hope my concerns get completely wiped away and they do great job with Gambit and make us all proud with his portrayal and introduce new audiences to him. But I do have some concern.
Why would it effect Gambit's character? CC and FabNic didn't write him as a creep or a loser. The 2015 Gambit script sticks pretty close to the Gambit vol. 2 version of the character (although, further to my points about the film industry above, I don't know how Fox could have marketed it).
One thing that would boost my confidence through the roof, would be if rumors are true that Kevin Feige is a big Gambit fan. If that is true I don't think we have to worry about someone coming in and carelessly handling the character and screwing him up.
Feige is a big X-fan and got his start producing on those movies. Gambit is one of a handful of characters who haven't been beaten to death by Fox, and he'd fit in with the street-level Falcon&TWS strand of the MCU as well as the superhero one.
