Channing Tatum Confirmed as Gambit
Options
1CK1S
Members Posts: 27,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
Back in January X-Men producer Lauren Shuler Donner expressed an interest in casting Channing Tatum as Gambit in a proposed standalone movie, then in April the 21 Jump Street star said that he’d love to play the character. And now it seems a deal has been done, with Donner confirming the news last night.
“It is Channing” Donner told TotalFilm on the X-Men: Days of Future Past red carpet in London. “He’s a rogue, Channing, he’s a rascal, like Remy LaBeau, and he can handle the action, we all know that.”
Donner added that the fact he’s a southerner and knows that world makes him the perfect person to play the part.
So do you think Tatum is a good fit to play the Ragin’ Cajun? Let us know in the comments below, and check out the full interview, in which Donner also says how much X-Force fascinates her, and how she wants to make a gritty film version of the property.
“It is Channing” Donner told TotalFilm on the X-Men: Days of Future Past red carpet in London. “He’s a rogue, Channing, he’s a rascal, like Remy LaBeau, and he can handle the action, we all know that.”
Donner added that the fact he’s a southerner and knows that world makes him the perfect person to play the part.
So do you think Tatum is a good fit to play the Ragin’ Cajun? Let us know in the comments below, and check out the full interview, in which Donner also says how much X-Force fascinates her, and how she wants to make a gritty film version of the property.
Comments
-
I was wondering who's back they would put the franchise of once Jackman called it quits. Looks like this is the answer. The X movies will now go from being glorified Wolverine movies to becoming a Gambit film series.
-
Gambit is my favorite X-man, but no, he can't be the face of the series. That's contradictory to his character.
And this is a terrible choice. They could have just kept the other guy. He fit the part better than Tatum. -
By the standards set by the comic books Wolverine shouldn't have been the face of the series either. The X-Men themselves should and we all know how that turned out.
They're not getting Tatum and giving him his own solo movie for the sake of making Gambit some background character. Let's get real here. -
Wonder how's his Cajun accent.
-
Channing Tatum is a ? damn horrible actor. His performance in GI Joe was the least convincing military character I have ever seen.
Gambit deserves better. this is all Bryan Singer's fault somehow. I just need someone to put the blame on. -
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
By the standards set by the comic books Wolverine shouldn't have been the face of the series either. The X-Men themselves should and we all know how that turned out.
They're not getting Tatum and giving him his own solo movie for the sake of making Gambit some background character. Let's get real here.
Well, to be fair, Wolverine was the face of the X-men for a while. He was the only one that was in damn near every book even when it didn't make sense for him to be there.
-
Yeah you can't really put Gambit as the face of the X-men by casting a popular actor like tatum as him. Hell I
d rather see him play deadpool and keep being funny vs him sorta having Gambit be all over the place.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »By the standards set by the comic books Wolverine shouldn't have been the face of the series either. The X-Men themselves should and we all know how that turned out.
They're not getting Tatum and giving him his own solo movie for the sake of making Gambit some background character. Let's get real here.
Well, to be fair, Wolverine was the face of the X-men for a while. He was the only one that was in damn near every book even when it didn't make sense for him to be there.
No doubt about it he's been a very iconic character since the Claremont run. But you see people like us who read comic books or even the ones that know Wolvie from the cartoons and video games are such a small percentage of the general audience that it wouldn't have made a difference to not focus on him in all the movies. Certainly not in the eyes of audience members like my dad or sisters who never read a comic book in their life and still enjoy the X-Men film series. Focusing on the team as a whole instead would've been more ideal since it only leads to more spin off potential down the line if done well anyway. But it is what it is.
My point is when Jackman was cast everybody was like "Who Jackman?" and he ended up as the backbone of the franchise. Imagine a guy like Tatum who is established in the mainstream, is adored by a huge chunk of the general audience for these movies (teenage girls and ? boys) and is being introduced into the franchise playing a character who was always a Wolverine knock off in light of Hugh Jackman saying that he plans on wrapping it up with the character. It ain't hard to tell what they're trying to do.
-
thefabmd2dc wrote: »Yeah you can't really put Gambit as the face of the X-men by casting a popular actor like tatum as him. Hell I
d rather see him play deadpool and keep being funny vs him sorta having Gambit be all over the place.
Yes they can. The producers of these movies could do whatever the ? they want with them. They already have for 14 years. They're not slaves to the comic book canon they're telling their own stories. -
Sad part is Gambit's back story could make for some pretty interesting solo movies with all that Thieves Guild and Assassin's Guild ? . But I just have zero faith in Channing Tatum for the role. My favorite part of GI Joe 2 was when Duke got merked.
-
Well yeah the producers can do what they want but I expect an X-men movie with Gambit at the center is a tough sell. I bought Wolverine because he was the newb of the group for the first few movies and that fit his role in the comics when introduced.
Now you have Gambit who is just as much of a loner but for way different reasons.
Still if they want to go down that road best go all the way and Tatum seems really into the role -
Again bro those are YOUR expectations as someone familiar with the source material. The majority of the people that watch these movies don't care as long as they're entertained and they're very easy to please. So they're not going to go "oh man ? the new X-Men because Gambit is now the centerpiece" they'll go "oh ? Channing Tatum is now the new star of the X-Men movies, let's check it out" sadly.
-
thefabmd2dc wrote: »Yeah you can't really put Gambit as the face of the X-men by casting a popular actor like tatum as him. Hell I
d rather see him play deadpool and keep being funny vs him sorta having Gambit be all over the place.
Yes they can. The producers of these movies could do whatever the ? they want with them. They already have for 14 years. They're not slaves to the comic book canon they're telling their own stories.
Well of course they can do whatever they want if they ignore everything set forth by the comics, but why even do that?
Wolverine has always had his own books, but even while starring in those, he was still a mainstay in the X-men. Gambit has spent as much time away from the X-men as he has with them. Wolvie might be a little rowdier than what they like, but all in all he still stands for the X dream. Gambit is pretty much an unrepentant criminal with a good heart. You can make Wolverine the face of the X-men without really sacrificing anything from his character. You can't really make Gambit the face of the X-men without cleaning his character a little. I'd rather them not use him than destroy him. -
-
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »thefabmd2dc wrote: »Yeah you can't really put Gambit as the face of the X-men by casting a popular actor like tatum as him. Hell I
d rather see him play deadpool and keep being funny vs him sorta having Gambit be all over the place.
Yes they can. The producers of these movies could do whatever the ? they want with them. They already have for 14 years. They're not slaves to the comic book canon they're telling their own stories.
Well of course they can do whatever they want if they ignore everything set forth by the comics, but why even do that?
Wolverine has always had his own books, but even while starring in those, he was still a mainstay in the X-men. Gambit has spent as much time away from the X-men as he has with them. Wolvie might be a little rowdier than what they like, but all in all he still stands for the X dream. Gambit is pretty much an unrepentant criminal with a good heart. You can make Wolverine the face of the X-men without really sacrificing anything from his character. You can't really make Gambit the face of the X-men without cleaning his character a little. I'd rather them not use him than destroy him.
Why do it? because they can and they have. These movies are adaptations that means they take whatever they want from the comics and twist and turn it their own way to fit the story they're telling. Have you not seen them? lol
Havok is a founding member of the X-Men completely changing a huge part of his character from the comic books in the sense that the sibling rivalry and envy he had with Scott partly stems from him being one of the first X-Men. Mystique is Xavier's foster sister and didn't know Rogue or Nightcrawler let alone claim them as her children. She was a good guy who turned bad guy and has scales like a lizard and is permanently nude unlike the comic book version. All of that altered that character a lot. They tried to make her more sympathetic and anti heroish and the sexiness factor went from "eh blue chick ok" to "yuck this hoe's got scales" but hey that was their vision.
Rogue got turned into a mix of Kitty Pryde and Jubilee. Then when they introduced the real Kitty Pryde they started giving Rogue less screen time (The Last Stand) instead of making her act like...Rogue. That was their creative choice. Cyclops is more like the lame version from the cartoon than the guy from the comic books. Actually he's worse, he's a stock non factor when in the comics he's a charismatic leader. They actually took a lot of elements from Cyclops cause as you said Wolverine was rowdy and they neutered Wolverine by making him Cyclops in more ways than one for the movies. But it served whatever story it is Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner were supposed to tell.
A lot of those are more important characters than Gambit and they got merged and flipped upside down to cater to the narrative of the people who made them. What makes you think Gambit will be exempt? Especially if the First Class (movie not comic) cast is who they continue with for the next few movies.
Tatum will be a marquee name like Lawrence and Fassbender meaning he'll get marquee name screen time. Gambit will be the Wolverine surrogate going forward. There is no other reason for them to introduce him now. He's mysterious, he has no real moral codes, he's quick witted and good with strategy, he still an upstanding hero when he needs to be and he has one of the more unique power sets. He always fits the Wolverine archetype.
It is what it is you either roll with it and accept it or you just simply ignore it and don't watch the movies. I choose to do the latter; these movies just aren't creative enough for me and they failed in entertaining for the most part. So I voted with my dollars and my time and just ignore them. Too many movies out in a year to care about something not worth the time.
No matter what they do with Gambit in the movies the Gambit you know will still be in the comic books. End of the day who ever Lauren Schuler-Donner hires for these movies whether it's Bryan Singer or Matthew Vaughn all those people have retold X-Men their own way. That formula won't change.
As for the bold just don't get your hopes up. -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
lord nemesis wrote: »Wonder how's his Cajun accent.
Actually not bad i saw a vid on youtube -
-
Why do it? because they can and they have. These movies are adaptations that means they take whatever they want from the comics and twist and turn it their own way to fit the story they're telling. Have you not seen them? lol
Havok is a founding member of the X-Men completely changing a huge part of his character from the comic books in the sense that the sibling rivalry and envy he had with Scott partly stems from him being one of the first X-Men. Mystique is Xavier's foster sister and didn't know Rogue or Nightcrawler let alone claim them as her children. She was a good guy who turned bad guy and has scales like a lizard and is permanently nude unlike the comic book version. All of that altered that character a lot. They tried to make her more sympathetic and anti heroish and the sexiness factor went from "eh blue chick ok" to "yuck this hoe's got scales" but hey that was their vision.
Rogue got turned into a mix of Kitty Pryde and Jubilee. Then when they introduced the real Kitty Pryde they started giving Rogue less screen time (The Last Stand) instead of making her act like...Rogue. That was their creative choice. Cyclops is more like the lame version from the cartoon than the guy from the comic books. Actually he's worse, he's a stock non factor when in the comics he's a charismatic leader. They actually took a lot of elements from Cyclops cause as you said Wolverine was rowdy and they neutered Wolverine by making him Cyclops in more ways than one for the movies. But it served whatever story it is Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner were supposed to tell.
A lot of those are more important characters than Gambit and they got merged and flipped upside down to cater to the narrative of the people who made them. What makes you think Gambit will be exempt? Especially if the First Class (movie not comic) cast is who they continue with for the next few movies.
Tatum will be a marquee name like Lawrence and Fassbender meaning he'll get marquee name screen time. Gambit will be the Wolverine surrogate going forward. There is no other reason for them to introduce him now. He's mysterious, he has no real moral codes, he's quick witted and good with strategy, he still an upstanding hero when he needs to be and he has one of the more unique power sets. He always fits the Wolverine archetype.
It is what it is you either roll with it and accept it or you just simply ignore it and don't watch the movies. I choose to do the latter; these movies just aren't creative enough for me and they failed in entertaining for the most part. So I voted with my dollars and my time and just ignore them. Too many movies out in a year to care about something not worth the time.
No matter what they do with Gambit in the movies the Gambit you know will still be in the comic books. End of the day who ever Lauren Schuler-Donner hires for these movies whether it's Bryan Singer or Matthew Vaughn all those people have retold X-Men their own way. That formula won't change.
As for the bold just don't get your hopes up.
I'm not arguing with you on those points. I'm saying they can't go that route without butchering Gambit's character. I don't even get you. You come in here and ? about comic book movies all the time, but you defend the fuckery that's been perpetrated in the X movies. Why? -
What I'm saying is they have already butchered endless characters including major ones in the entire 14 years of this film series. It's ridiculous to think Gambit out of all characters will not be butchered at this point. They'll do what's best to tell their stories.
-
What I'm saying is they have already butchered endless characters including major ones in the entire 14 years of this film series. It's ridiculous to think Gambit out of all characters will not be butchered at this point. They'll do what's best to tell their stories.
You're right the ? up ? is most of these characters already have great stories. I don't mind changes as long it improves the story but most of the time it doesn't
-
I could see Darryl from the walking dead playing gambit..anybody but tatum
-
? NO!!!!!! They should have wolverine play gambit
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJgpTpnPEc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
