Originally Posted by Angamb
I posted a comment recently, not sure if on this topic or another one, but the point basically was that the age thing in movies is never 100% realistic.
And many studios have used same actors playing their roles in different time periods, its called a creative license.
And the most recent example for all of us is Dofp: FC actors are playing their characters being 11 years older, but only being just 3 years older compared to FC. Its not realistic, but at the end, it doesnt matter, because the audience can see the journey of those characters with the same actors, ands thats always better for a franchise, since the audience can connect with the actors during all the movies.
If Fox and Singer has done this with FC actors, they can do the same with Gambit. Taylor is older now, and by the time of next movie, he will be closer to 40 years old. So its fine. He doesnt need to really has 50 years old, he will be older than Origins, and thats enough. And he fits perfectly with Anna's age, since Taylor is one year older than her. So its fine.
As I said on an older comment too: Movies arent reality. Its fiction, and these licenses can be taken.
McAvoy and Fassbender were in their 30s in FC and they were playing characters in their late 20s.
Hoult and Lawrence were 20 in FC and their characters were still teenagers.
So it makes sense for them to play the same characters after a decade.
It's not the same thing with Kitsch, Gambit was like in his 20s in 1987, right? Then Gambit would be in his 50s in 2023. It's not a jump of one decade, it's jump of over three decades.
And the age difference between Gambit and Rogue would be around 30 years. That's just creepy, Angamb.