Gambit or Deadpool

[Lebeau]

You're not sure if I even like Gambit? My name is Lebeau. Need any hints as to where that came from? :P

Look, I never once said Gambit is unhealthy...I just think in the scope of this film, Deadpool is healthier than Gambit is.

Yes, the movie-verse is very different to what we read on inked paper, but that doesn't mean these discrepancies have to keep happening. With the extensive backlog of story and characterisation the writers have for their characters from Marvel, it'd be nuts to alter their origins apart from minor things.

How would you credibly tie Gambit into Weapon X? Make him Stryker's brother!? I'm just saying, Deadpool is Weapon X through and through...has been from the start...his character is there, written and delivered to the film as a part of Wolverine's past. Why mess with it when all the work has been done for you?

Gambit and Deadpool are both great characters. Deadpool is more relevant to this film. Thus, Deadpool, IMO, is more important to the success of the story than what is, frankly, a random mutant.

 

[LadyVader]

You're not sure if I even like Gambit? My name is Lebeau. Need any hints as to where that came from? :P


I wasn't referiing to you in particular in that post, just anybody who shares your opinion

Look, I never once said Gambit is unhealthy...I just think in the scope of this film, Deadpool is healthier than Gambit is.

What. Is. Healthy? That's all I want to know. How do you define a healthy story? It eats all its veggies, works out three times a week and has a high sperm count?

Yes, the movie-verse is very different to what we read on inked paper, but that doesn't mean these discrepancies have to keep happening.

They will keep happening because what works on paper doesn't work on the big screen, because the producers are interested in making a profit not being faithful and to make a profit they have to get as many buts in those seats as possible. Best we can hope for is a compromise. But things will never change as long as comic book publishing houses sell the rights to the characters to other people, but even a Marvel produced movie like Iron Man took liberties with the material.

With the extensive backlog of story and characterisation the writers have for their characters from Marvel, it'd be nuts to alter their origins apart from minor things.

How would you credibly tie Gambit into Weapon X? Make him Stryker's brother!? I'm just saying, Deadpool is Weapon X through and through...has been from the start...his character is there, written and delivered to the film as a part of Wolverine's past. Why mess with it when all the work has been done for you?

Well you are a bit naive aren't you? First of all, when you have the rights to a movie franchise you don't make minor changes. You make whatever changes you want that ensures you will get your money's worth. The only thing that matters is the pull of these characters, not the quality of their characterization in the comic books.

Second of all, there are dozens of ways one can tie Gambit to Weapon X without him actually being involved with the project. He could be a thief hired to steal something from them, or a mark used for training the team in the field, or an informant they some times work with. I don't know. And unless you read the script, you don't know either.

Gambit and Deadpool are both great characters. Deadpool is more relevant to this film.

Again, we know nothing about the story. At least I know nothing. Does everybody else happen to know something that I don't know? Cause I would feel a little silly right about now.


Thus, Deadpool, IMO, is more important to the success of the story than what is, frankly, a random mutant.

Define succes of the story. Cause if you define it by how much money it makes than I would say no, Deadpool is definetely not important to the succes of the story, since it has a limited fanbase. Marketing, promotion, visiblity... those are the things vital to the succes of a story cause those are the things that bring people to movie theaters. If you define succes of a story by how good that story is, well, that's all a matter of opinion I guess. What I consider to be good, you might consider to be sucky and vice versa.

 

[Lebeau]

Haha, okay, obviously we're not gonna find common ground here. I just started writing a reply and I was repeating myself. So I'll take your opinion as it stands and hold mine just as firm.

The word on the street for Gambit's role has something to do with

Spoiler

him being in a New Orleans bar where he meets Wolverine. Not sure what happens from there on in, but from what I've heard, it's a chance encounter and most likely some kind of team-up.

 

[LadyVader]

I still want you to explain what you want in a healthy story because it seems to me faithfullness to the comic books is a big part of it.

Sorry if I seem to get carried away but I've been waiting for this for so long that I may be hyper-defensive. Gambit is mah baybee and all that. I just disagree with you on two points. One, I don't think there's such a thing as a healthy or unhealthy story and since we don't know anything about Gambit's role in the movie, there's no way to tell if he's relevant or not.

 

[Omega Wizard]

Your only fact is that Deadpool fits into the timeline.

I countered that, since they don't really care about the comics, they'll be fitting Gambit into the timeline just fine. Thus, the point is moot. I'd bet 80-85% of the people that see this film have no idea how Deadpool relates to Wolverine going in.

How much exposure Deadpool receives with this film will not make it any better. Any fan base he gets from this helps a potential spin off, NOT the film Wolverine at all.

Also- you admit Gambit has a larger fan base. Thus, more Gambit fans will be seeing the film than Deadpool fans. If Gambit's treated fairly in the movie, there's a much larger crowd that will be please, making Gambit more integral to the "health" of the film, to answer the original poster's question.

All in all, neither character will have that much of an effect on the film. It is about Wolvie, after all.

But Gambit will do more for it than Deadpool. Especially since it'll just be the same character Ryan Reynolds has been feeding fans for years.

But DP's fan base will get extremely bigger after the film, leading to more word of mouth. People already know about Gambit.

Deadpool is better for tha money, with a potential spin off. And god knows money is all that matters.

 

[LadyVader]

And God knows that a Deadpool movie produced by Fox would suck! Hello? These are the people who thought it was a good idea to have Galactus be a giant sphyncter cloud. They wouldn't know the first thing about how to handle a character like Deadpool. How would they even market the film? It's not like parents are itching to take their kids to a movie about a crazy disfigured monster of a man who wants to f**k the Olsen Twins.

I doubt we're going to see a Deadpool spin-off. The problems we have with that movie are not going to magically disappear because of a small part in Wolverine. Likewise I doubt we'll see Gambit in any future X-men movies.

 

[Neptune]

But DP's fan base will get extremely bigger after the film, leading to more word of mouth. People already know about Gambit.

Deadpool is better for tha money, with a potential spin off. And god knows money is all that matters.

So you're saying Gambit is well known but Deadpool will bring in more money because he's not as wel known? Gambit's fanbase will get bigger too after this movie. Money wise, both characters are healthy for this movie because including them will make sure that a lot more comicbook fans are going to see it.

 

[WeaponXProject]

Gambit is gonna bring in more money for his name but Deadpool definitely is a cool character. If Marvel did a spinoff of either character with an origin story I'd rather see Gambit. I really want to see both of them in their own movies.

 

[GreedLantern]

I still want you to explain what you want in a healthy story because it seems to me faithfullness to the comic books is a big part of it.

Sorry if I seem to get carried away but I've been waiting for this for so long that I may be hyper-defensive. Gambit is mah baybee and all that. I just disagree with you on two points. One, I don't think there's such a thing as a healthy or unhealthy story and since we don't know anything about Gambit's role in the movie, there's no way to tell if he's relevant or not.

First off. I think faithfullness does have apart in it, only because of the fact that there is a good story all ready layed out plain and simple. If they added Gambit for the reasons we're all thinking ($$$$$$) then they may have to downplay one character to play up another for the sake off BO numbers. Stuff could get contorted and we may get a really weird story.
Gambit is already in the movie, so you would have to change the story. That may be looked at as unhealthy because Gambit had a romance with Rogue, and putting him in the story at the age that he is could throw off this potential story. Even though this isn't affecting X-men Origins: Wolverine, it could affect the future X-men movies (if they happen).

I think having Deadpool in the story would be healthier all 'round. He was naturally a part of Wolverine's origin, he HAS a cultlike fanbase ($$$) while not as large as Gambit's it is still a positive, Ryan Reynolds is a BETTER actor than Taylor Kitsch.

However I think having both of their characters in the movie will be good, one is comedic relief the other is the...there isnt a word to describe him but his attitude is unlike most and BOTH are badass. To have them both in the movie will be healthy in the end is what I think.

I really think they both are healthy for the movie but Gambit dosn't fit as well, ONLY because of what I know in comics do I say this, so if the writers can pull off sliping him in then everything could turn out super.

 

[LadyVader]

First off. I think faithfullness does have apart in it, only because of the fact that there is a good story all ready layed out plain and simple.

Good, like most abstract values, is a matter of perspective. There hasn't been a superhero comic book movie yet, with the exception of the Punisher (who was pretty much an adaptation of Welcome back, Frank), who has followed a particular comic book story line... religiously. And we all know how much love the Punisher got.

If they added Gambit for the reasons we're all thinking ($$$$$$) then they may have to downplay one character to play up another for the sake off BO numbers.

May have. We don't know.

Stuff could get contorted and we may get a really weird story.

Could. May... grasping at straws here. Still haven't heard anything CONCRETE, based on fact about how Gambit is affecting this movie in a negative way. Not just "well this might happen, or that might happen". A lot of stuff could happen. Beak could have a bigger role than Deadpool and Gambit put together!

Gambit is already in the movie, so you would have to change the story. That may be looked at as unhealthy because Gambit had a romance with Rogue, and putting him in the story at the age that he is could throw off this potential story. Even though this isn't affecting X-men Origins: Wolverine, it could affect the future X-men movies (if they happen).

Rogue has absolutely nothing to do with this movie. Nada. And his relationship with Rogue is not the end-all, be-al defining Gambit characteristic.

I think having Deadpool in the story would be healthier all 'round. He was naturally a part of Wolverine's origin, he HAS a cultlike fanbase ($$$) while not as large as Gambit's it is still a positive, Ryan Reynolds is a BETTER actor than Taylor Kitsch.

Still has nothing to do with what part the character plays in the story

However I think having both of their characters in the movie will be good, one is comedic relief the other is the...there isnt a word to describe him but his attitude is unlike most and BOTH are badass. To have them both in the movie will be healthy in the end is what I think.

I really think they both are healthy for the movie but Gambit dosn't fit as well, ONLY because of what I know in comics do I say this, so if the writers can pull off sliping him in then everything could turn out super.

 

[LadyVader]

Still haven't heard a decent explanation of what a healthy story is. By the way things are going, it's a story with lots of Deadpool and minimal quantities of Gambit. By that logic, every single story ever is very unhealthy.

 

[Canemacar]

Depends on the context, i suppose. The only way deadpool being featured instead of Gambit would make a movie "healthier" is if health is defined by how similar to source material it is.

 

[stryfe]

God I hate Gambit.

 

[iamlegend]

God I hate Gambit.

That was by and far the most rational post in this thread. It makes an untold amount of sense, and we should all kneel in awe before it.

t:

 

[stryfe]

That was by and far the most rational post in this thread. It makes an untold amount of sense, and we should all kneel in awe before it.

t:

Its truth. Deadpool is the better choice.

P.S. I am legend is maybe the best last 3 lines of any book ever created. The irony and humor he finds in the situation is fascinating.

 

[Deadpool87]

...Beak could have a bigger role than Deadpool and Gambit put together!

On man, let's hope not!!

 

[iamlegend]

On man, let's hope not!!

If Beak has a role bigger than either character I'm going the South Park route and refusing to leave until the theater gives me my money back...

 

[Deadpool87]

If Beak has a role bigger than either character I'm going the South Park route and refusing to leave until the theater gives me my money back...

Yeah, same here!

 

[Neptune]

Gambit should make Beak eat a charged card which then explodes in his mouth or his beak

 

[Congo Jack]

It may be because I'm really tired but I found that "or in his beak" line hilarious. Yeah, probably becuase I'm tired.

 

[iamlegend]

Gambit should make Beak eat a charged card which then explodes in his mouth or his beak

Ha, not likely. Any and all killing will be handled by Wolvie and Sabes. They'll probably kill every supporting character in the movie, and then just start offing producers. Right on screen.

 

[GreedLantern]

First off. I think faithfullness does have apart in it, only because of the fact that there is a good story all ready layed out plain and simple.

Good, like most abstract values, is a matter of perspective. There hasn't been a superhero comic book movie yet, with the exception of the Punisher (who was pretty much an adaptation of Welcome back, Frank), who has followed a particular comic book story line... religiously. And we all know how much love the Punisher got.




If they added Gambit for the reasons we're all thinking ($$$$$$) then they may have to downplay one character to play up another for the sake off BO numbers.

May have. We don't know.

Stuff could get contorted and we may get a really weird story.

Could. May... grasping at straws here. Still haven't heard anything CONCRETE, based on fact about how Gambit is affecting this movie in a negative way. Not just "well this might happen, or that might happen". A lot of stuff could happen. Beak could have a bigger role than Deadpool and Gambit put together!

Gambit is already in the movie, so you would have to change the story. That may be looked at as unhealthy because Gambit had a romance with Rogue, and putting him in the story at the age that he is could throw off this potential story. Even though this isn't affecting X-men Origins: Wolverine, it could affect the future X-men movies (if they happen).

Rogue has absolutely nothing to do with this movie. Nada. And his relationship with Rogue is not the end-all, be-al defining Gambit characteristic.

I think having Deadpool in the story would be healthier all 'round. He was naturally a part of Wolverine's origin, he HAS a cultlike fanbase ($$$) while not as large as Gambit's it is still a positive, Ryan Reynolds is a BETTER actor than Taylor Kitsch.

Still has nothing to do with what part the character plays in the story

However I think having both of their characters in the movie will be good, one is comedic relief the other is the...there isnt a word to describe him but his attitude is unlike most and BOTH are badass. To have them both in the movie will be healthy in the end is what I think.

I really think they both are healthy for the movie but Gambit dosn't fit as well, ONLY because of what I know in comics do I say this, so if the writers can pull off sliping him in then everything could turn out super.

Okay

Don't deny they put Gambit in the movie for money, he has NO history at all with Weapon X. Yeah this is in the comics, I don't care if continuity dosn't matter it's all we have to go on at this point, deal with it.

If they mess up comic book continuity stuff already has been contorted. It dosnt matter if you dont hold the comics with any bearing to the movie, it is simply all we have at this point. Beak having a larger role than DP or Gambit is possible but not plausible. I could go and rob a major bank tomorrow....but it makes no sense to do so.

I said Rogue had nothing to do with the film, I am aware of what I said. Try reading my post again. "Even though this isn't affecting X-men Origins: Wolverine, it could affect the future X-men movies (if they happen)" that is what I said. No nead to be so picky.

I KNOW that no knowledge of DP's part in the film is out, I also know that he has a history with Wolverine in the comics, so therefore there are stories and paths they could follow concerning the two.

Lastly I am glad you can agree with me on something.

 

[iamlegend]

Okay

Don't deny they put Gambit in the movie for money, he has NO history at all with Weapon X. Yeah this is in the comics, I don't care if continuity dosn't matter it's all we have to go on at this point, deal with it.

I can't give this argument any validity, because Deadpool's addition (played by a well known actor, nonetheless) is essentially the same thing.

The Deadpool character was not in the original script, much like Gambit. They only added the two later, when they decided that they'd need more of an ensemble type deal to make the money they wanted.

So they cast a character that Ryan Reynolds has repeatedly said he'd like to play?

Yeah, not a money grabbing move there.

 

[lucas8771]

I think Gambit will appear longer in the movie. I base this soley on the fact that there were reports throughout filming of Taylor being on set, at wrap parties and out with the cast. Meanwhile, there was never even a mention of people having seen Reynolds. There were no paparazzi pics of him out and about, on set, or entering or leaving Australia. However, there were consistent pics of him in the states throughout filming working on other projects so I am going to assume he will not be nearly as big a character as Gambit.

 

[GreedLantern]

I can't give this argument any validity, because Deadpool's addition (played by a well known actor, nonetheless) is essentially the same thing.

The Deadpool character was not in the original script, much like Gambit. They only added the two later, when they decided that they'd need more of an ensemble type deal to make the money they wanted.

So they cast a character that Ryan Reynolds has repeatedly said he'd like to play?

Yeah, not a money grabbing move there.

I am not arguing against Deadpool being added for money, because that is completely possible as well. But I was saying how if Gambit was added for the money then, they might give him more screentime than other members of the cast. Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of having him in it. Now this is IF they did it for the purpose of garnering more money, maybe they did it because it would make the movie a masterpiece. At first I was positive that this ($$$) is why they added Gambit but now I am looking at it in a different way.

I don't understand that last part though. Ryan Reynolds is a Deadpool fan, a good comical actor, a decent actor (Smokin Aces), how does this mean that its a money grabbing movie? And on who's account?