jim_doki:
Gambit is a mystery. He's the archeatypical loner rogue. He's smoother than Logan, More bad ass than Scott and more quick witted Than Hank. He also one of the few x men with a real trademark. and his accent is just pure awesome

Pretty much this.

I think the fact that he was even a "bad" guy at one point more than qualifies him for the following he has garnered.

Gambit is awesome because he is Cajun.
*points to SN*
Win.

Aardvark:
The only good character to come out of X-Men was Deadpool. The rest have been arse.

Affirmative, captain.

Onyxblackwolf:
Question - couldn't he just run around punching people/charging them with kinetic energy to make them explode? I think I remember him doing that (but only in the cartoon - and only to robots).

In X-Men Legends 2, he can do this. The enemies don't actually get instant-killed from the explosion, but they take some good damage and get knocked into the air.

Because of his power, a thrown playing card can have the same force behind it as a punch from the Hulk. How is that not awesome?

Although Maverick would have him totally beat.

fallen1:

This is probably the best explanation ever! LOL

It's actually his answer in one of the early comics. I can't remember who asked him why he always used playing cards, but I remember his answer.

Pfft, the only Marvel comic worth reading is NextWave anyway.

I never really liked him either. He used to co-star in a UK collectors comic called 'Wolverine and Gambit' but a lot of the readers started to hate him so he got booted of the comic and replaced with Deadpool.

I never really considered the Cajun accent a plus for Gambit - it sort of got on my nerves, much like Rogue's Southern Belle. Of course, it could be I'm just being pretentious.

Question - does Gambit use a Bo staff or a quarterstaff? I'm guessing the latter, but I'm not really sure, and I thought for a change I'd shy away from Wikipedia.

The power's cool, I guess ("Sure would be nice if we had some grenades, dontcha - OOH! Playing cards!"), but I'm a Nightcrawler fan, anyway. If Wolverine used deodorant once in a while, I'd probably like him more, as well.

Gambit is probably one of my least liked. Of course, I'm on the side that has wolverine as a favourite, so I can't really talk. Deadpool is another great character, it's going to be good to have him in Wolverine film, and played by Ryan Reynolds.

Style, and lots of it. He also has a weapon, which makes him even more badass.

Ryan Reynolds is awesome in his own right, but to have him play Deadpool is sweet beyond words.

Now we just need to find somebody equally awesome to play Green Arrow. I wonder if Ewan Macgregor is equal to the task.

Gambit was an apology for losing Longshot.

Not a very good apology, either.

- J

If you are talking about abilities, I like Colossus or Iceman more.

If you are talking about personality, I like Wolverine or Nightcrawler more.

That's only about X-Men. I would rather have Pyro with his Australian accent (not some American bastard actor...) and his attitude. Or Juggernaut. And that's about both powers and character.

By the way - they can afford a German Nightcrawler, but they can't afford one good Australian actor to play Pyro?

He just radiates cool!

Drake the Dragonheart:
I was really surprised they never had Gambit in any of the three movies, seeing as he is one of the more popular characters.

I see that as a good thing - i couldnt bear to see his character ripped apart in the films.

He carried around a pack of cards and threw them at people - whats not to love?

Aardvark:
The only good character to come out of X-Men was Deadpool. The rest have been arse.

Really? I always thought Deadpool was kind of cliche. A wise-cracking mercenary that looks like Spiderman. Basically, I always saw him as comedy relief.

On the other hand, Beast and Iceman were interesting, for different reasons. I'd have to pick one of those two, probably.

DraconianKing:
I'd like to submit that my good buddy Remy (Gambit) would have been one of the most powerful mutants alive

Did you forget about Franklin Richards?

I know that Sinister weakened Gambits powers, but I never found a reference to him being able to "charge up the world". I just know that he had so much power going through him that he found it very hard to control, which Sinister helped him with, by lessening it. I'd be interested to see the reference to that.

Iceman and Jean Gray are probably the two most powerful mutants the X-men have.

I guess some people are drawn to a character that carries a giant stick.
>insert phallus joke here<

I've had this same argument with an X-men obsessed friend. She wasn't particularly happy when I referred to his "mysterious character" as "carrying a stick, throwing cards, and having no eyes." Put some sunglasses on a back-alley-casino blackjack dealer and you've got gambit.

Aardvark:
The only good character to come out of X-Men was Deadpool. The rest have been arse.

Who was a straight rip off of DC's Deathstroke but who's counting?

For one, he lacks Wolverines annoying secondary mutant power: to simultaneously appear in every single thing Marvel has ever printed, ever (seriously, I think he's started to retroactively appear in old Spider-Man stories now - it's crazy)... Lack of overexposure is a good thing.

Erm...EXPLOSIONS!!!

Hookman:
I never really liked him either. He used to co-star in a UK collectors comic called 'Wolverine and Gambit' but a lot of the readers started to hate him so he got booted of the comic and replaced with Deadpool.

I would read the hell out of this. Deadpool annoying the ever loving hell out of Wolverine sounds awesome. It is for this same reason I'm getting more and more tempted to pick up Cable and Deadpool...even though I think Cable is lame. (And to be honest I've hardly heard people talk about that character, so I almost doubt anyone will learn me why Cable is great - but I welcome the information)

rossatdi:

(Deadpool) was a straight rip off of DC's Deathstroke but who's counting?

I heard he was originally - they played him straight and evil didn't they? But now with his wacky anti-hero activities and his 4th wall breaking antics they're pretty different (apart from the still wildly similar costumes). Unless they changed Deathstroke...admittedly I don't read DC books so I wouldn't know.

-----
Back on subject...
Okay, so Gambit is seeming sorta...too great. Could someone give me the 411 on Gambit's faults? Clearly his dress sense in already on the list...or is it that only real men wear pink and blue breastplate things? (What is that thing anyway/has he gotten a costume update?)

Abedeus:

By the way - they can afford a German Nightcrawler, but they can't afford one good Australian actor to play Pyro?

If you're talking about the movies, Nightcrawler was Scottish.

berethond:
Everyone who says he makes stuff explode is wrong. Wrong. He charges objects with kinetic energy. How awesome is that? And he uses a quarterstaff, and he's a master thief.

Being a science nerd, that makes no sense. You can charge things with POTENTIAL energy, that is the concept of potential. Kinetic energy is the energy of an object in motion, so charging kinetic energy is kind of contradictory.

However, when I was a younger I used to enjoy his character as well, I remember him having that snarky loner wit that I only wished I had had at the time (as I was a loner then as well).

he's a master thief with a cajun accent. His power is interesting because there are constantly new ways for him to use it (my favotrit was when he charges the gum he had in his mouth and spit it at they who had pinned him) and his eyes are black and red.

Plus he's really good looking which must be appealing to the admittedly smaller number of female comic book readers.

um, nightcrawler has only ever been german, in both the comics and the movie.

Jumpman:
um, nightcrawler has only ever been german, in both the comics and the movie.

Yes, but the actor playing him is Scottish.

coldfrog:
Being a science nerd, that makes no sense. You can charge things with POTENTIAL energy, that is the concept of potential. Kinetic energy is the energy of an object in motion, so charging kinetic energy is kind of contradictory.

If you made a list of all the things that was wrong with the science of X-Men, and placed it alongside a pile of all the issues of X-Men ever printed, the list would still be bigger.

GloatingSwine:

coldfrog:
Being a science nerd, that makes no sense. You can charge things with POTENTIAL energy, that is the concept of potential. Kinetic energy is the energy of an object in motion, so charging kinetic energy is kind of contradictory.

If you made a list of all the things that was wrong with the science of X-Men, and placed it alongside a pile of all the issues of X-Men ever printed, the list would still be bigger.

Point taken!
*starts on a list*

Nah, I'm kidding. I'm not that bad, but it's been so long since I've been into X-Men that I didn't recall that description and I just had to note it because it amused me.

HE THROWS CARDS THAT EXPLODE!!! Do you really need a better reason?