Gambit movie

[Slant]

Why do people think being an antagonist is any better? You've already got a big name actor on board and are trying to get him a solo. He won't spend the film brainwashed. A "Misunderstanding" fight in the beginning is whats likely.

[Ambaryerno]

Just thought I'd post an observation I had when posting in the "Who deserves a shot?" thread:

Given the hostility I've been seeing over Chambit, I can't wait to see what happens when Fox has to come to a decision about recasting Wolverine...

[DakenGirl]

Just thought I'd post an observation I had when posting in the "Who deserves a shot?" thread:

Given the hostility I've been seeing over Chambit, I can't wait to see what happens when Fox has to come to a decision about recasting Wolverine...

Especially if Fox actually went with the original comic look and cast a short, hairy, homely guy in his fifties. I cannot see people accepting that who have got used to Jackman in the role.

[remydat]

Why do people think being an antagonist is any better? You've already got a big name actor on board and are trying to get him a solo. He won't spend the film brainwashed. A "Misunderstanding" fight in the beginning is whats likely.

Because antagonists tend to kick ass before eventually being defeated as a means to make the threat faced by the hero seem impossible. Winter Solider for example kicked ass for most of the Captain America movie. A "Misunderstanding" fight usually ends with the minor character taking the L like Taylor Kitsch did in Wolverine Origins where as cool as that fight scene was, it ended with Wolverine knocking him the **** out.

So yeah I would much rather a Winter Solider like role for Gambit where he spends the bulk of the movie actually looking like a serious threat rather than just being one of the good guys that gets overshadowed by the main stars. Now of course, if he gets to look bad ass as a good guy then I would be fine with that as well.

[Purplevit]

This would be my dream scenario. A story with the first 45 minutes or so establishing the Guilds and ending with his banishment. Then the next 45 minutes of him roaming the world and linking up with the Marauders and GD (gotta have a love interest) where initially they are part of a Heist team run by Sinister. So they do heist jobs while Gambit is also being pursued by the Assassin's. Then the final 45 minutes is that Heist team growing more sinister (pun intended) due to Mr. Sinister's influence with Sabes somehow causing GD's death (perhaps he was in love with her too) and finally culminating in the Marauders going on what Gambit believes to be a heist that turns out in fact to be the Mutant Massacre.

You could then link the MM into the Apocalypse movie and other films by having Sinister's reasons for the massacre being he had to cover up his research to prevent Apocalypse from learning that he was experimenting on the Morlocks to develop a mutant that could defeat him. If you really wanted to link it all then Cable can be that mutant which we don't find out until the X-force films.

I still want Gambit solo to continue his development from Apocalypse movie and not to be a prequel.
His origin can be a secret and we do not need to see how he became Gambit. He wasnt bited with spider, he is a mutant. Some backstory about origin, his banishment or dark secrets can be brought up in movie but not fully explained or showed. It will give Remy more mystery.

[cc008]

I still want Gambit solo to continue his development from Apocalypse movie and not to be a prequel.
His origin can be a secret and we do not need to see how he became Gambit. He wasnt bited with spider, he is a mutant. Some backstory about origin, his banishment or dark secrets can be brought up in movie but not fully explained or showed. It will give Remy more mystery.

I don't want a prequel either. Prequels generally bug me.

[belay]

I still want Gambit solo to continue his development from Apocalypse movie and not to be a prequel.
His origin can be a secret and we do not need to see how he became Gambit. He wasnt bited with spider, he is a mutant. Some backstory about origin, his banishment or dark secrets can be brought up in movie but not fully explained or showed. It will give Remy more mystery.

I agree with wat u said. During the beginning of the character as part of the x-men had a lot of mystery about him. Nobody knew much about him DAT made him a very interesting character as nobody could fully trust him. These elements should be exploited in the x-men apocalypse movie and should not follow up with his origin in the solo movie but should follow the root of his latest ongoing series which was really great.

[Slant]

Because antagonists tend to kick ass before eventually being defeated as a means to make the threat faced by the hero seem impossible. Winter Solider for example kicked ass for most of the Captain America movie. A "Misunderstanding" fight usually ends with the minor character taking the L like Taylor Kitsch did in Wolverine Origins where as cool as that fight scene was, it ended with Wolverine knocking him the **** out.

So yeah I would much rather a Winter Solider like role for Gambit where he spends the bulk of the movie actually looking like a serious threat rather than just being one of the good guys that gets overshadowed by the main stars. Now of course, if he gets to look bad ass as a good guy then I would be fine with that as well.

On a different scale you could be right, but an Apocalypse movie is a lot bigger in scale, and most other antagonist will only be subservient to him. Its not an equal comparison to the Cap movie. It'd be more in line with other X-Men movies.

[remydat]

I still want Gambit solo to continue his development from Apocalypse movie and not to be a prequel.
His origin can be a secret and we do not need to see how he became Gambit. He wasnt bited with spider, he is a mutant. Some backstory about origin, his banishment or dark secrets can be brought up in movie but not fully explained or showed. It will give Remy more mystery.

I think a solo movie that doesn't go into his origins would be a mistake. Developments from the Apocalypse movie should come in future X-men team films not the solo IMO. Look at all the Marvel solo films or even Wolverine Origins. They all go into the origins of the characters and none of them really focus heavily on what comes out of the X-men or Avengers team films. The point of the solo should be to focus on the stuff that you can't get in the team films which to me is all the origin and history outside of the X-men.

I don't want a prequel either. Prequels generally bug me.

It's not really a prequel because it isn't really focusing on the events of the movie. All that it should do is flesh out the character more since you can't get that level of detail in a team setting. The only link to the actual movie would come in an after credits scene that just shows in 2-3 minutes how it connects to the Apocalypse move but the remaining 2 hours is more about learning about who Gambit is and not a prequel.

I agree with wat u said. During the beginning of the character as part of the x-men had a lot of mystery about him. Nobody knew much about him DAT made him a very interesting character as nobody could fully trust him. These elements should be exploited in the x-men apocalypse movie and should not follow up with his origin in the solo movie but should follow the root of his latest ongoing series which was really great.

Movies are a different animal that a serial comic or TV show. You can leave mysteries answered for a long time in those formats because that is part of the draw. What we are talking about is an Apocalypse movie that would debut until 2016 and a gambit solo that won't debut until some time after that. When movie goers are waiting a year or 2 before they get to see the character again, trying to keep a bunch of mysteries hidden about a given character is not a good idea IMO. Movies are about instant gratification not long drawn out mysteries and plots like serialized fiction.

[remydat]

On a different scale you could be right, but an Apocalypse movie is a lot bigger in scale, and most other antagonist will only be subservient to him. Its not an equal comparison to the Cap movie. It'd be more in line with other X-Men movies.

Hey, if you are telling me that because of the rumored solo that Fox is going to make sure that Gambit stands out among all those mutant heroes (DOFP has like what 20 mutant heroes) then I have no problem with that. I am just thinking of the simple numbers here and Gambit as head of Apocalypse's horseman kicking ass seems more appealing than Gambit as foot solider in the mutant hero army. You don't have the King/Emperor fight until the heroes have defeated all his Generals so I would think a lot of the movie is going to be his horseman wreaking havoc while he stays above the fray moving his chess pieces on the board.

Personally if I were the one doing the Apocalypse movie, I would be thinking of it more along the lines of "The Empire Strikes Back" ie the movie ends with Apocalypse and his Horseman actually winning with the sequel to Apocalypse being "The Return of the Jedi" epic conclusion where this great menacing threat is finally defeated with the aid of former Horseman Gambit. Then you get the big reveal that Gambit was never completely brainwashed at all but simply realizing Apocalypse could not be defeated unless there was someone on the inside, decided he had to be that guy. So it would be a combination of his original motives in the BoA comic book story and his role in MC when he was with Sinister and the Marauders with the X-men who later defeat Apocalypse surviving or escaping Apocalypse's clutches because unbeknownst to them, Gambit is on the inside feeding them info or preventing Apocalypse's forces from capturing and killing them just like he stopped Scalphunter from killing Cannonball during MC.

Either way, I want a darker version of Gambit in the team movies operating as the double agent that does the shady things no one else has the stomach for and with all the normal heroes mistrusting him or because of his nonchalant carefree attitude when he is seemingly betraying them and then the solos can after going into his origins have Gambit trying to redeem himself for those hard choices while doing a little thieving, romancing, and swashbuckling along the way.

[cc008]

It's not really a prequel because it isn't really focusing on the events of the movie. All that it should do is flesh out the character more since you can't get that level of detail in a team setting. The only link to the actual movie would come in an after credits scene that just shows in 2-3 minutes how it connects to the Apocalypse move but the remaining 2 hours is more about learning about who Gambit is and not a prequel.

That's true. In terms of Gambit and the story it may not be a prequel, just in terms of when the movie takes place.

[gambitxremy]

Gambit should be Cyclops brother in the movie

[cc008]

Gambit should be Cyclops brother in the movie

You know something? If they used that storyline, I wouldn't be against it. I know there is a good community of Gambit fans who swear against that theory, but I think it's interesting.

[gambitxremy]

Is havok even Cyclops brother in the movies

[cc008]

I'm not sure if they said a connection would be explained in DoFP or not.