Sequels "Gambit" starring Channing Tatum? - Part 1

[MutantXGene]

As much as I respect the apparent care he had for the character and film, I never liked the idea of seeing him as Gambit. He just didn't fit the character appearance-wise to me. Honestly not complaining if he's not part of this film anymore.

 

[bullets]

Nobody thought a Deadpool movie was going to happen either but the film has already been made. We can't assume that Taylor Kitsch isn't going to play Gambit again because he just might want to.

Not for a solo film but I wouldn't rule him out for the character. Gambit is not getting a solo film if Tatum drops out. Maybe we'll see Kitsch in Deadpool 2. He's a good actor and got stuck in a terrible film.

 

[bullets]

As much as I respect the apparent care he had for the character and film, I never liked the idea of seeing him as Gambit. He just didn't fit the character appearance-wise to me. Honestly not complaining if he's not part of this film anymore.

There was a big backlash when he was first cast . Tatum has improved as an actor but his best work was in a comedy series . So I don't think he's won everyone over. Just improved his fanbase somewhat and is making better career decisions

 

[cronosred]

Because he wanted out of the franchise.

And the sequel went on to make more money than the first film.

 

[Majik1387]

Pretty sure that had to do more with the new cast.

 

[cronosred]

Pretty sure that had to do more with the new cast.

Exactly, they didn't need him.

 

[Majik1387]

They also had popular brand name recognition.

I'm not saying Gambit needs Tatum, but he is most likely a deciding factor in the aspect of the solo movie moving forward.

 

[cronosred]

I'll just say looking at Tatum's films on Box Office Mojo if he does stay with the film Fox really needs to find a way of lowering the budget significantly.

 

[Majik1387]

Ugh not this budget crap again.

 

[Flint Marko]

Ugh not this budget crap again.

It's going to keep coming up because $150 million is absurd. Realistically a Gambit movie should be half that price. If someone I knew paid $70,000 for a toyota Camry I'd react about the same way.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'll just say looking at Tatum's films on Box Office Mojo if he does stay with the film Fox really needs to find a way of lowering the budget significantly.

Yep, his highest grossing action film is GI JOE which made 305 million. This is not a diss but he just doesn't have that much clout in the action genre, I don't get the 150 mil budget. Honestly, like I said before, Gambit should be an 85mil budgeted film at best.

 

[Sawyer]

Ugh not this _______ crap again.

Story of virtually every CBM-related thread on the Hype. We've beaten so many dead horses that there aren't any left at all.

 

[Majik1387]

It's not absurd at all, especially if they plan to film on location a lot.

 

[magneto23]

Love how everyone knows exactly how much a movie is supposed to cost now.

 

[Majik1387]

It's going to keep coming up because $150 million is absurd. Realistically a Gambit movie should be half that price. If someone I knew paid $70,000 for a toyota Camry I'd react about the same way.

And again, it is not your hypothetical $70,000 for you to react upon.

Love how everyone knows exactly how much a movie is supposed to cost now.

Seriously, wtf?

I'm curious if people complain/ed about Deadpool's lower budget when it was reported?

 

[Flint Marko]

It's not absurd at all, especially if they plan to film on location a lot.

I'm not sure how you can argue against this. A movie about a thief from New Orleans who can make things explode does not at all require that insane budget. Ant-man was made for $130 million and that was undoubtedly more special effects driven.
To further prove my point, here's John Campea (a man who talks and writes about movies for a living) going on a tirade about how absurd that budget is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqjdGV2PbVE

Believe what you want, but it's undeniable.

And again, it is not your hypothetical $70,000 for you to react upon.

You're right, if someone I know drastically overpays for something I shouldn't have an opinion on it whatsoever

 

[Majik1387]

We do not know if it all takes place in New Orleans........


All we know about the movie is that it had Tatum set to star, a director, and some character audition side descriptions.

Don't really care about Campea's opinion on the production budget considering it's not his business how much Fox feels comfortable spending on one of their movies.

 

[cronosred]

Ugh not this budget crap again.

I'm sorry. Get Tatum, we need Tatum, we don't want this stupid movie without Tatum. Tatum's the only reason a Gambit movie should ever and could ever be made. This will surely be his first big budget film that will actually be a hit. Tatum will not be stopped, there can be no other. Tatum.

There. Better?

 

[Majik1387]

You may wanna recheck my posts in this topic before you try being snarky so you won't look like an idiot.

 

[Flint Marko]

We do not know if it all takes place in New Orleans........


All we know about the movie is that it had Tatum set to star, a director, and some character audition side descriptions.

Don't really care about Campea's opinion on the production budget considering it's not his business how much Fox feels comfortable spending on one of their movies.

No, we know enough. We know this movie is about a thief from New Orleans who can make things explode. Again, that does not warrant $150 million dollars. That's more than the last Wolverine movie cost, and Gambit sure as hell ain't Wolverine.
Your defensiveness is certainly confusing given that these are points actually worth discussing and debating, yet you act as if it's wrong of us to have an opinion on this because it's "not our business". By that logic, if next week Fox announces a Garfield reboot with a $300 million dollar price tag, we shouldn't bother discussing that either.

 

[kevork89]

Don't forget. Budget also includes salary. We don't know how much Tatum or the rest of the cast is going to cost. I do agree the budget is quite high. And it's surprising. But did that number include tax incentives?

 

[Majik1387]

No, we know enough. We know this movie is about a thief from New Orleans who can make things explode. Again, that does not warrant $150 million dollars. That's more than the last Wolverine movie cost, and Gambit sure as hell ain't Wolverine

Actually, Wolverine Origins budget was the same. It was just used poorly.

And we don't know enough of anything for the movie to comment on the budget.

Your defensiveness is certainly confusing given that these are points actually worth discussing and debating, yet you act as if it's wrong of us to have an opinion on this because it's "not our business".

It's not defensive at all, all of you commenting it's too much money are just ridiculous.
Especially considering most comic book/super hero movies always have a budget between 130-170mil.

By that logic, if next week Fox announces a Garfield reboot with a $300 million dollar price tag, we shouldn't bother discussing that either.

And as stupid as that hypothetical situation sounds, pretty much yeah. If Fox wants to throw out that much money for whatever their reasons, that's on them.

 

[Flint Marko]

Actually, Wolverine Origins budget was the same. It was just used poorly.

The Wolverine was shot for $120 million. Notice how I said "the last Wolverine movie".

And we don't know enough of anything for the movie to comment on the budget.

We know it's a solo movie about a character we've never seen on screen before starring someone whose average movie grosses $68 million domestically.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=channingtatum.htm

Seems like that's all you really need to know to at least have a discussion, yet here you are telling us we shouldn't.

It's not defensive at all, all of you commenting it's too much money are just ridiculous.
Especially considering most comic book/super hero movies always have a budget between 130-170mil.

Deadpool is being shot for what, $40 million? Kick ass was $40 million. Daredevil was $80 million. Ant-man was $130. FF 2015 was originally budgeted for around $80 million. The Watchmen was $130 million.
I could keep going, but I think you get my point.

And as stupid as that hypothetical situation sounds, pretty much yeah. If Fox wants to throw out that much money for whatever their reasons, that's on them.

Yep, it's on them for sure. Not sure why that's pertinent, as the only point I have continued to make is that discussions like this are far from ridiculous.

 

[Mike Murdock]

By that logic, if next week Fox announces a Garfield reboot with a $300 million dollar price tag, we shouldn't bother discussing that either.

There's a huge difference there. I don't care about a Garfield movie and don't care if we see more. I want to see a Gambit 2, which isn't going to happen if Gambit 1 fails to make a profit.

 

[Flint Marko]

There's a huge difference there. I don't care about a Garfield movie and don't care if we see more. I want to see a Gambit 2, which isn't going to happen if Gambit 1 fails to make a profit.

Undoubtedly, but I was making a counter-point to his claim that we shouldn't discuss movie budgets because "it's none of our business". That's clearly a ridiculous argument. If anything, those who want a sustainable Gambit franchise should be against Fox going all out in this first movie so there is a better chance of it making it's money back.