I completely agree with this point. Storm/Gambit is very important. Without Storm as the leader of the X-Men seeing potential in him, he's out in the streets. It's hard to see "potential" in a 40-year old. Again, 40-year old thieves are very hard to see "potential" in and be sympathetic toward.
She didn't recruit him because she saw "potential" in him. You forget that she had been de-aged to a child when they met. She saw him as something like a big brother. Which fits with the experienced and world-wise figure I'm talking about.
If you want to make an indy film that will appeal to a small cult fan base, you can make him a serial killer for all I care. But when you're trying to make a film as big as the X-Men series, you should consider what the people will respond to.
Which is why they changed Wolverine from a short and unpleasant guy into the tall, handsome, romance novel-esque guy he was in the films. Yes, I know they tend to make concepts more pretty for the films. The thing is; they've been doing that with Gambit in the comics for years and it's been disastrous.
Honestly, I don't respond well to the 40-year old hardened criminal having a sudden epiphany that really doesn't present many behavioral changes (he's still shady, he's still secretive, and he still flirts with every woman he comes across. All that changes really is that he's working for the "good guys".)
Causing the genocide of a society of outcasts is a bit more than a "sudden epiphany" as are the behavioral changes that comes from it (being shady and secretive is part of his personality; what he dropped was the self-centeredness and the apathy for the plights of others).
I respond a lot better to a young man who's been shoved around by life, who took a few wrong turns, and who wants to change but is afraid to.
And that kind of sappy sob story just bores the hell out of me.
A change of heart without a lot of changed attitudes makes sense at that age. It doesn't make sense at 40.
Actually, I'd say it makes perfect sense. People become set in their ways.
The 40-year old who has an almost invisible epiphany doesn't make for a good hero.
Again with this "almost invisible" stuff. The fact that he joins a superhero team and sets his life on the line isn't proof that he's changed? He has to be a clean-cut bore in order to be good?
You can only be so much of an anti-hero before you become a villian.
And Gambit is supposed to be on the line that separates the two. It's one of his defining characteristics. I know women like bad boys because they want to see the good in them and all, but you can't brush away all the less pleasant things or you'll end up with an entirely different character.
I guess I too would prefer that they cast a relatively unknown (not necessarily "young") actor rather than the likes of Josh Holloway. The notion of Holloway as Gambit just feels like an attempt to replace Wolverine to me.
Ummm...Thats exactly what they're trying to do it. Thats why they kept him out of the first couple movies; so he can be the "Replacement Wolverine" when Jackman gets tired of being Logan. They even admitted it.