But Rogue fits. She went to the X-men to become a student in #171. That she was part of the Brotherhood, has ties with Mystique, stole Ms. Marvel's powers are irrelevant as that could still happen. We don't see a Rogue in the film that has Carol Danver's powers, flying, super strength, etc. That would disrupt continuity being set in part by the books and by the films.

I don't think Gambit would work in the movie... i mean have you ever tried to throw cards in real life? Doesn't work.

Actually, i don't think a superhero that throws things, even if they explode, would be terribly interesting to non-fans.

I wanted Psylocke in the movie, damnit...

oh come on, you cant be serious. in this day and age, throwing cards would be NO problem with special effects... infact, i think it would look incredible.

think of it.

Well, where's Cable at?

There is no continuity. Rogue doesn't 'fit' anymore than a Gambit storyline would. There's plenty of liberties taken in the films that are quite far fetched from the comic books. Colossus was immediately recruited as an X-Man in Giant Sized X-Men #1. I'm not sure how he and others can be considered 'students' compared to others. To me, i'm under the impression that everyone in the school are 'students' of Xavier anyway.

The point is there's no rationalization to which characters are picked except for the technical difficulties of putting Beast or Angel on screen and the obvious choices (IMHO) of Wolverine, Cyclops, Magneto... and maybe Storm.

Edit: Oh and i think fans would love a Gambit character... personally i think watching him throw cards on screen would look awesome.

X2's script was done long before Freedom Fries or the war. I believe you could have bought the X2 novel when the war started.

Then you really don't know his powers. He can place an explosive charge into non-living items. Touches something depending on how big in mass it is, thats how long it takes to charge them, Going off that idea, I'm sure that the cards have a bit more weight to them after being charged up.

Now as for throwing cards.. You do realize that there is a trick behind it...

http://www.midgetfarm.com/media/cardsasweapons.shtml

http://www.ricksmithjr.com/fun/tricks.php?trick=22

http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/jcgcard...wing/index.htm



Now, as for gambit. I can understand that he's not in. His story line in general does seem like a rehash of wolvie's but there is a more deeper side of it of him being responsible for the death of morlocks. Maybe if they ever cover that they might put him in it. Who knows, maybe if they just change his past or something. either way the stuff going on now seems good as it is. I would just hope that Gambit does make it to the films sometime in the future, oh yeah Halle is indeed not coming back to the x-men if a third one is made as she feels storm's character is not given enough time

I wonder if Halle Berry, Famke Janssen and James Marsden are not coming back because of this news article:

From imdb.com:

I told you (read my last post), but we'll see after May 2nd.

I don't care if Halle leaves and the discard Storm for a movie or two, but I want them to keep Famke as Jean Grey! I don't care if her character doesn't add much to the film (in some people's opinions) - I think she is great and her interaction w/ Wolverine in excellent.

Now James Marsden not coming back as Cyclops would be a blessing because then they could find a decent actor to take over the character.

I know a lot of people would want to see Gambit, but I would love to see Scott Summers/Cyclops' brother Alex Summers/Havok in an X-Men film. He was always my favorite character besides Wolverine when I was growing up, even though his run in the cast of the X-men wasn't near as long or noteworthy as many others members. His powers would translate would translate well to the screen if the producers used a top-notch FX crew.

i'll be really suprised if we see Halle Berry back for the next film.
especially considering the way the Storm character has been pretty marginalized for the first two films.
i believe Singer has already commented that 'not all the characters would need to be back for the third film'
if she does make an appearence, it will probably be akin to Lois Lane in Superman III ( after she pissed off the producers in the middle of the I,II filming).

i bailed out of the X-men comics in the mid 80s, not being able to take Claremonts dense and redundant storylines anymore.
i missed out on the return of Jean Grey, and the introduction of fan favorites like Jubilee and Gambit, so thier non appearence doesn't bother me a bit.
considering the nature of this franchise, as long as they are successful, it allows for endless opportunites by new directors to introduce more and more fan favorites to keep the series seeming fresh & new - hopefully this won't be in lieu of a compelling story/plot ( which i inevitabley see happening sooner or later).

I was kidding about the throwing card bit.

However, I was serious about stating that i don't think Gambit's powers would be terribly interesting on the screen. Essentially what he does is throw things at people and even if they blow up, I don't think it would be all that interesting.

Maybe it's just me, i never was a Gambit fan to begin with.

Ahhh not true.

I saw a man throw playing cards that stuck in a watermelon on Connan O'Brien. Jackie Chan was a guest and he was blown away by the man's abilities.

This may be a question, but I used to be quite a big fan of the X-Men...

And I've never heard of Pyro. Who the F is he? When did he debut? I don't remember him...

Thanks!

I believe he was a member of the brotherhood of evil mutants. Although he was never a big character. Kind of strange at the character choices that we've seen... Toad and Pyro have both been fairly weak characters in the comics and turned into cooler counterparts in the movies.

I'm just speculating here but I wonder if the Director(X-Men) was looking to develope a "weak" character from the comic?

If ya'll remember, this is why Tim Burton wen't "all out" with The Penguin" in "BATMAN RETURNS". He said he always thought the character was weak and had more potential...or something like that.

Personally, I think he totally screwed up Cobblepot's image but that's just me.

I wouldn't call TOAD a cool character in the films as he was just riding off the whole "Hey look, it's darth maul" trip.

Well, I know Toad sucks in the comics, and there's no way he could single-handedly incapacitate three X-Men, especially the most powerful ones, (Storm, Cyclops, Jean) like he did in the first movie.

Pyro WAS kind of a lesser character of the brotherhood...never saw him too much. He died of the Legacy Virus a couple years back.

Gambit will be in the movies eventually. They'll F up his origin like everyone else's. I don't think his origin is very similar to Logan's at all, though...how does a life as a thief correllate to someone who's been a miner/samurai/soldier? His past, to me, shares a lot more similarity with Ororo than Logan.

Just to remind you that no one said Gambit's back story was similar to Wolverine's.

The closest thing to this I could find in the thread is Fumanstan's comment about what he read regarding the character :

Now, considering I'm not a X-Men geek as I only read the comic for something like 2 years in the early 90's (around the time they all reorganized the team into 4 titles or so :Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, X-Force and X-Factor) I'm not THE X-MEN reference but. I still think that this statement is really true. The Gambit character in the comics usually annoyed me with his uncontrolable temper and semi-funny quisps in badly written Cajun dialect. He sounded like a mixed bag of Wolverine, Spider-Man and Jean-Claude Van Damme whenever he tries talking in french now.

As for my view on the work of Brian Singer, I think it was unavoidable that his movie wouldn't please many fans of the comics as his writing team would have to do such an important editorial job in order to reduce thousands of comic pages into a simple origin story that would be understandable to a largely non-comic-reading public and would still get to respect in part the "legacy" (I think that the word legacy is like according too much importance to any comic book).

Cramming as much characters as possible would have been a terrible mistake. Insisting too much on action scenes while leaving the characters unidimentional would have been another. In my humble opinion, his first movie was a success. And I think I'll be seeing X2 this next friday with great pleasure.

yeah, i remember in one comic, he charged some pie and threw it at bishop.

i can understand the desire to not have two mysterious, brooding characters in the same movie (wolverine and gambit)... but isn't nightcrawler's background supposed to be mysterious as well? anyway, nightcrawler looks like he's gonna be pretty cool.

I can deal with gambit being in a future movie. but i'd also love to see angel, and his turn into archangel (who was just too cool...) although bringing in apocalypse would be a lot to do.

also, beast has got to be in the next one. they said he wasn't in this one because of all the blue with mystique and nightcrawler... well, we don't need mystique after this movie anymore... seeing her turn into someone else may get to be kind of old after this movie.

anyway, as long as they don't skimp on special effects or plot, i think people would love to see an X3, 4, 5, etc. movies like these (with a number of different characters and lineups) has the potential to be a long-running series.

Wish Ice man looked like ICE!!!!

Can't find it, eh? I'll help ya, 'mon ami'...

(Edited for grammatical and continuity errors. No offense, JS. Habit, baby. Habit.)

Seems pretty straightforward in the accusation of similarity...to me, anyways.....

You got me!

Must have skipped a part. Sorry.

but he's Gambit...

Once in high school I had such good aim with cards I threw one about 25 feet and cut my friend on the forehead. It was awesome. I should be Gambit.