Le Diable Blanc: Gambit Appreciation

[Neko]

Whoa... that may be the best tease yet.

No kidding and CDG used the wording

CDG:
OKAY
This is WAR!

Goes great with the image.

[Synthetic Innocence]

I recall that interview too. Which to me is funny because his Gambit was rugged looking.

Not a big fan of Lee's art - but I've seen worse. TBH - I'm glad they went with pretty, I'm thinking nothing good could be debated about the charm without going into negatives for the power.

ANXF #15 CDG's FB:

Lol you mean Gambit's date rape powers. *smirks*

But really if you look back at the characters they've ALL gotten better looking over the years. Case in point, Kitty Pryde. Though her makeover has it's own controversy.

But seriously even Magneto got prettier over time.

I'm more than good with the Remy we got in his most recent Solo, really any of his solo versions. I don't think his original comic version was bad, it got worse with the Wolverine/Gambit victims series and of course the sleazy 90's cartoon version where all the guys had the same physique, huge muscle men, yuck.

[cc008]

No kidding and CDG used the wording


Goes great with the image.

Absolutely. It sounds like it's the basically part of the big send off for CDG and bookend for the first year.

[Synthetic Innocence]

Here's wishing for another year to come! Haven't looked at the sales numbers lately does anyone know what place ANXF is in?

[cc008]

Not sure of the rank, but it's basically settled in to where the last volume of X-Factor hovered for years before its relaunch for All-New NOW!

[Moonshine]

If I remember right, the charm was to make up for the looks but .. once they went with looks no need for the charm.

Well he was still pretty charming. Lee basically stated he first didn't want to make him too attractive because the point was he was charming - it had nothing to do with a power. CC didn't make that really clear so there was debate if it was a power, and as you state, everyone gets better looking in comics over time. Rogue has, Cyclops has, Wolverine has, etc. It was much much later that it was sort of defined as a weak power.

As for being a "villain". Gambit was like Sinister was to be the "construct" of a villain. The forever child Nathan who was obsessed with Scott. Neither were really "villains" in their own right as they basically did what Nathan supposedly made them to do. Nathan was to have Gambit betray the X-Men but then Gambit was to rebel and become his own person who would die to help the X-Men in the end. That was the story. It had nothing to do with Gambit being a villain in his own right. No more than Sinister was anything at the time but a puppet. Obvious the stories changed and Gambit wasn't the traitor Bishop accused him of being as that was a messed up Xavier as Onslaught.

[remydat]

As for being a "villain". Gambit was like Sinister was to be the "construct" of a villain. The forever child Nathan who was obsessed with Scott. Neither were really "villains" in their own right as they basically did what Nathan supposedly made them to do. Nathan was to have Gambit betray the X-Men but then Gambit was to rebel and become his own person who would die to help the X-Men in the end. That was the story. It had nothing to do with Gambit being a villain in his own right. No more than Sinister was anything at the time but a puppet. Obvious the stories changed and Gambit wasn't the traitor Bishop accused him of being as that was a messed up Xavier as Onslaught.

Yes Gambit and Sinister were not really people but merely "constructs" or "human Golems" of Nathan. Nathan aged more slowly than everyone else and was stuck in a child's body and so he created his idea of a villain (Sinister) and hero (Gambit) so that he could experience things as an adult that his real body would never allow him to do. There were hints throughout the early appearances that hinted at Gambit eventually betraying the X-men as characters like Banshee would remark about how Gambit was learning a lot about the X-men but they knew next to nothing about him.

[Synthetic Innocence]

Yes Gambit and Sinister were not really people but merely "constructs" or "human Golems" of Nathan. Nathan aged more slowly than everyone else and was stuck in a child's body and so he created his idea of a villain (Sinister) and hero (Gambit) so that he could experience things as an adult that his real body would never allow him to do. There were hints throughout the early appearances that hinted at Gambit eventually betraying the X-men as characters like Banshee would remark about how Gambit was learning a lot about the X-men but they knew next to nothing about him.

Luckily for all us Gambit fans the initial concept for his character was dropped. Probably due to the character's popularity. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was also what saved him from Claremont's killing spree. That and Claremont leaving (or being fired, depending on whom you believe).

[remydat]

I actually like that original storyline as an origin for the character. It nicely explains his lack of parentage and would be a better and more original origin than being a clone. That he was a product of a boy's imagination would also make sense in the sense that when he first debuted he did seem like a character created by a kid who just decided to make him a stereotypical badass ladies man. The only thing I would change of course is his dying.

But yes, that origin was dropped due to his popularity otherwise he would have been killed off.

[Synthetic Innocence]

I actually like that original storyline as an origin for the character. It nicely explains his lack of parentage and would be a better and more original origin than being a clone. That he was a product of a boy's imagination would also make sense in the sense that when he first debuted he did seem like a character created by a kid who just decided to make him a stereotypical badass ladies man. The only thing I would change of course is his dying.

But yes, that origin was dropped due to his popularity otherwise he would have been killed off.

I actually like the fact that essentially the character got a life of it's own. I mean starting as a construct, an empty shell, and blossoming into a fully faceted character, that's the biggest compliment to a writer that the character they created takes on a life of it's own.

Sure it leaves us with holes to fill in now that Gambit "is a real boy" so to speak lol, but, those holes aren't unable to be filled. I mean, he isn't the only one with major bits of their backstory missing.

[Purplevit]

Gambit' Movie Update: 'X-Men' Writer Unsure If Channing Tatum's Character Will Debut In 'Apocalypse

Writer Simon Kinberg explained to the Latino Review it remains unclear if Gambit will be included in the “X-Men” franchise. There are rumors of Gambit starring in his own film before making a cameo in the “X-Men” films, but Kinberg couldn’t confirm the news.

“I genuinely don’t know the answer to that question,” Kinberg said. “It’s something we are all talking about whether it would be good for Gambit to be in a mainline X-MEN movie or he would be in his own stand-alone movie potentially one day to be able to be in another X-MEN movie after his Gambit movie introduces him. I really don’t know the answer.

“I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule which way is better. I think both ways have worked and I think actually the real question will be is there a role that is strong and specific enough for Gambit in a mainline X-MEN movie whether it be APOCALYPSE or future X-MEN movie that would be the right way to introduce the character. You don’t want to stick characters in these movies and manufacture something for them to do."

http://www.hngn.com/articles/36884/2...apocalypse.htm

[cc008]

Gambit movie role taking the way of Deadpool's. Unclear. Not surprising.

[Neko]

Gambit movie role taking the way of Deadpool's. Unclear. Not surprising.

No kidding. While I would for a film, it really should be done right. This introducing for the sake of it isn't good. I agree with Kinberg in that regard.

[sprior93]

Hey people! I have a question. The other day one of my friends was trying to convince me that Gambit is bisexual. She showed me some scans that sort of made it plausible. So, I was wondering if fans generally view him as bisexual, or was my friend just reading between the lines too much/being a fangirl?

(I figured this would be the place to get some opinions, considering it's his appreciation/discussion thread)

[Neko]

I think your friend is reading between the lines too much. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a grouping of fans who think he is bi anyway. I don't see him as bisexual.