Why do some people hate Gambit?

Dormammu

The 80s were awesome. The very-early 90s were ok. Then there was a few years of sludge when all the 'hot' artists decided they wanted to try plotting or writing (see: founding of Image). Things self-corrected by the year 2000.

During that time Chris Claremont made two mistakes. The first was Gambit. The second was that X-Treme X-Men nonsense.

Jarvind

Dormammu said:

The 80s were awesome. The very-early 90s were ok. Then there was a few years of sludge when all the 'hot' artists decided they wanted to try plotting or writing (see: founding of Image). Things self-corrected by the year 2000.

During that time Chris Claremont made two mistakes. The first was Gambit. The second was that X-Treme X-Men nonsense.

In fairness, everything in the mid-to-late 90s was XTREME. Freaking yogurt was XTREME. I wasn't old enough to need one, but I presume one could have gotten an XTREME COLONOSCOPY if one looked hard enough.

Liftoff

The one problem I had with Gambit was a question that my friend asked me.  "So why does when he charge up cards they explode when they hit something, but when he charges up his bow it never explodes?"

smkspy

Dormammu said:

The 80s were awesome. The very-early 90s were ok. Then there was a few years of sludge when all the 'hot' artists decided they wanted to try plotting or writing (see: founding of Image). Things self-corrected by the year 2000.

During that time Chris Claremont made two mistakes. The first was Gambit. The second was that X-Treme X-Men nonsense.

That was just the title (and early 2000s, not 90s), it was standard X men Claremont writing beyond that...wasn't nearly as bad as Austen's Uncanny and the later portions of Morrison's runs.

Gambit and Cable are the OG cool characters, and some times cool characters like them just work. They don't need to be especially deep or brooding or anguishing over newest/ dead lover. They are there to entertain, simple as that.

n25philly

The problem with Gambit is that most writers don't know how to write him and he kind of became like Wolverine for a while where he was just shoehorned into everything and was largely just there to be there because he was popular.  Read the stuff written by claremont with him (who intended for Gambit to be a villain) and tell me he isn't a good character 

Straycat

I dunno, I had the impression that it was cool to hate Gambit. He was a popular character, but being contrarian and hating him was also popular.
 I'm neutral on him, I liked him from the Sega genesis game, but I don't know anything about him. Wasn't until I played Lego Marvel Superheros that I learned he had an accent. I think some people might resent him a little too since Channing Tatum is supposed to play him in a solo movie.

Jabrony_Geoff

...because he's massively overrated.
Whoop de do, let me throw some charged cards here; let me throw some charged cards there.
Gambit = Thumbs down

Daiches

People don't like Gambit because he assembled the Marauders for Mr. Sinister and is partly responsible for the Morlock Genocide.

Ducky

***Keep things in this thread civil or it will be locked. Thanks.***

Dormammu

I think everyone is being civil to one another, Ducky. We may not be civil to Gambit, but that's okay - he's a fictional character. 

Ducky

Dormammu said:

I think everyone is being civil to one another, Ducky. We may not be civil to Gambit, but that's okay - he's a fictional character.

***I don't think neckbeard references are particularly civil or telling the other side to get out if they don't agree, but please keep the thread on topic. If you wish to discuss the blanket warning, please PM me.***

Twl7569

What won me over about Gambit was his 1998 series. Fleshed out his origin, played with and enhanced his powers, ended a bit too soon, but so goes so many good series. 
I was in the anti Gambit camp until that series came out, but it did a great job of exploring his character outside of Rogue. 

ZootSax

STOPTHIS said:

Well, first off of course there's a middle ground. They just don't say anything.

This is true.  I'm apathetic about Gambit's appearance in the game, but see no need to post it (outside of here to point out that the middle ground does exist).  While his exploding cards remind me of something that belongs in the '66 Batman show, I like the '66 Batman show, so that's hardly a negative.  He's just not a character I'm excited to see, either...

StreetPreacher

Just not a fan of people with that kind of personality in RL.

Jarvind

Jabrony Geoff said:

...because he's massively overrated.
Whoop de do, let me throw some charged cards here; let me throw some charged cards there.
Gambit = Thumbs down

I mean, you could say that about any character though. "Oooh wolverine, he has claws and he heals, whoopty doo."

Dormammu

Jarvind said:

Jabrony Geoff said:

...because he's massively overrated.
Whoop de do, let me throw some charged cards here; let me throw some charged cards there.
Gambit = Thumbs down

I mean, you could say that about any character though. "Oooh wolverine, he has claws and he heals, whoopty doo."

Wolverine isn't popular because of his powers, just like Gambit isn't unpopular because of his. Logan is a fascinating character because of his struggle against his own nature - the overpowering animalistic 'berserker' that he loathes so much. Read his first limited series (drawn by Frank Miller) because nowhere is this better displayed than the loss of Mariko because her father saw Logan as nothing more than an animal, unworthy of his daughter. This nature coupled with his lack of memory made Logan an ultimate loner and he struggled with being a team player for 100+ issues of X-Men comics before finally clasping hands with Storm after the mutant massacre - that's depth.

Gambit came from a house of assassins - that's cliche.

Qubort

Kishida said:

White_Deth said:

Kishida said:

I think everybody else has mostly covered it, but... awkward 90s-style contrived "cool guy," skeezy as all hell, cartoonish accent as shorthand for character development (one of Claremont's worst, laziest tendencies), ridiculous costume, goofy powers (seriously, playing cards?!?). To me, he's basically the Poochie of the X-Men. Granted, there were worse characters to follow, but for some inexplicable reason, Gambit got kind of grandfathered in to iconic status.

His power is the ability to charge anything with energy. He peraonally uses playing cards as his go to because, well he likes gambling. He can even charge himself making him able to sustain large impacts and charge his staff. He doea it to much he does need to rest. I mean id love the fact i could prwtty much make a deadly exploaive decice out of a piece of paper lol

I understand that he can charge anything with energy. The fact that out of all potential options, they went with playing cards, that's what strikes me as goofy. Talking about the Distinguished Competition here, but that always felt like the huge failing of Green Lantern: dude can create anything he can think of, and it turns out he's not much of a thinker.

He went with playing cards because they're cheap, easily carried, and can charge almost instantly. Smaller the object the faster it can be charged.

That shouldn't change your opinion of a character but there was reasoning behind the weapon of choice.

csista

smkspy said:

csista said:

I definitely think a large part of the animosity is resentment towards his fans. When someone says Gambit is their favorite character, you get the feeling they haven't read a single comic in the last 20 years while you stuck around and they're kind of posing as a fan. Like if you asked them how they felt when Gambit was a horseman of Apocalypse, they would say, "No way! He was a horseman of Apocalypse? Cool!" Kind of makes you want to ignore any opinion they have about the character.

No way! Gambit was a horseman of apocalypse!!!!

Just kidding, but yours and mega ghost attitudes are those very worst comic culture attributes also. That if you haven't kept up constantly with a character or title, know every single arc of them, then you are not a "true fan" or any opinion you may have of character isn't valid. Which I guess that I would fall into your category since I quit buying single issues in 2010, and still a fan of the character but pretty ignorant of his status of the last 7 years.

People with those attitudes made me loathe going into the comic shop every Wednesday for my weekly books or into a store when back issuing shopping. Type of "this my club" I know everything and look down upon you comic book neckbeard that it is literally impossible to have a conversation. 

Not saying that is either of you guys, but if you're gambit hater, then you're probably one of those guys.

And I'm a Gambit fan by default being from Louisiana. That said, have never meet anyone from New Orleans with that accent. Lots of Cajun french in southwest louisiana, but even they don't speak in the Claremont-isms...but that was his style of writing.

I definitely know the kind of people you're referring to, but I'm not one of those. I hate those gatekeeper types, too. Comics are dying, new fans are welcome and needed. Or returning old ones. It's just that right now, superheroes and geek culture in general are very mainstream. So along with that you get the insincere lifelong "fans" that are trying to be part of the trend. And a lot of those types use Gambit as a reference, because the last time they actually cared was when they watched the cartoon as a kid, and he was at peak popularity at that time. And when it gets reported that Gambit's getting his own movie, or that he's coming to MPQ before so many other characters, it can feel like those guys are getting rewarded before the ones who stuck around through thick and thin and had to patiently wait for him to fade away.

Personally, I have no issue with it. Superheroes have fan bases coming from all different directions, and they're all a part of this game community. I'm here as more of a comics fan. A lot are here because of the movies. And in the case of the X-Men, you have old fans of a beloved cartoon from their childhood. I think this new trio of characters is a great combination. Nightcrawler for the readers, Gambit for the viewers, and Rogue bridges both. 

n25philly

Kishida said:

White_Deth said:

Kishida said:

I think everybody else has mostly covered it, but... awkward 90s-style contrived "cool guy," skeezy as all hell, cartoonish accent as shorthand for character development (one of Claremont's worst, laziest tendencies), ridiculous costume, goofy powers (seriously, playing cards?!?). To me, he's basically the Poochie of the X-Men. Granted, there were worse characters to follow, but for some inexplicable reason, Gambit got kind of grandfathered in to iconic status.

His power is the ability to charge anything with energy. He peraonally uses playing cards as his go to because, well he likes gambling. He can even charge himself making him able to sustain large impacts and charge his staff. He doea it to much he does need to rest. I mean id love the fact i could prwtty much make a deadly exploaive decice out of a piece of paper lol

I understand that he can charge anything with energy. The fact that out of all potential options, they went with playing cards, that's what strikes me as goofy. Talking about the Distinguished Competition here, but that always felt like the huge failing of Green Lantern: dude can create anything he can think of, and it turns out he's not much of a thinker.

Playing card are because they are 1) easy to carry.  A few decks would be a lot of ammo and not much weight. 2) non lethal when charged. 3) fit the gambling motif

Bishop

The Gardians of the Galaxy isn't goofy? The only thing that makes them great is the movies. Gambit is awesome enough said. Id like him in RL lol.