Cinematical

My son and I feel the same way - where's Gambit??? Many years ago - before they decided to make XMen movies - he read an article about who'd be great for the roles. Jean Claude VanDam (sp?) was mentioned to play Gambit.

Reply

It seems to me that a lot of people have written in here claiming to be these huge comic guru's, yet they don't seem to know MUCH about a lot of the different storylines. First, for the person that says "you don't kill the Professor." Marvel has MANY times. They always find a way to bring him back, just like good 'ol Jean. Next, as has already been mentioned, like it or not, Wolverine sells comics. MANY of the X-Men storylines revolve specifically around Wolverine. He is a fan favorite just like good 'ol Remy. Everyone keeps saying the characters are all wrong. How so? In most cases I have found of people saying this, it's because they didn't pay attention to the END CREDITS to see what characters were perpetrated in the movie. I have yet to find a character that was completely off base. Yes, there were a few minor changes to character powers and personalities, but not enough to "alter the essence of the character." As for Rogue being "cured," so was Magneto, but you saw him pretty well using a severely weakened version of his powers at the end of the movie. They, just like the second movie, set themselves up for future storylines. Such as, the "cure" actually only being a TEMPORARY fix, and not permanent. Hmmmm.....seems like a storyline involving Rogue I can think of in the comics. Then there is the whole, as has already been mentioned, FACT THAT THIS IS JUST A MOVIE. They are always going to deviate from the comics/books in some way. You want to complain about something deviating from the books, go complain about the Da Vinci Code or something. That was the real summer travesty!

Reply

I'm not one of those people who worries about the changes made when transitioning a story (any story, comic, TV show, book) to the screen. I do have a problem with people who don't take full advantage of the source material.

I thought the last X-Men was ok. Not great, but not bad. I think the complaint about Gambit missing is the kind of thing I mean. I'm not a big Gambit fan, I just think of you are making a movie about an army of mutants, you could throw in a few mutant guest shots. Did I really need to see generic mutant 7 wireworking his way badly off a bridge when there are plenty of b and c grade mutants that would have given someone a thrill without wasting them for another movie?

Also, about Proffessor X, he just seemed under used. He, along with Cyclops, seemed to be hustled off screen to make room for the rest of the story, even though there wasn't much of it. Yes, no one stays dead in comics (damn you Jason Todd), but I like to seem them at least go out for a reason. Having a Gambit guest shot would waste him, but having Xavier in 3 scenes was ok? 2 for Cyclops? 3 for Mystique? It felt more like contract negotiations that character development.

Reply

I agree with both Chris and Justin. That suspense and plot had to be subsumed to Halle Berry's ego (and minimal acting skills) tells you where the power is on contract negotiation. Moreover, Gambit is far too charismatic a personality to have thrown into this mishmash. There was already waaaayyy too much going on to add even one more plot detail.

And while the studio may be serious about no more X-Men films, that does not preclude the possibility of subgroupings as are done on the books all the time. One could easily see a Wolverine film that includes Rogue, Kitty Pride and Gambit. Wolverine always works best with foil, anyway, either the straight-arrow Scott or the competing badboy Remy.

Reply