Will Gambit still betray the X-Men?

[Teamballin]

Okay, Everyone knows that Gambit is suppose to betray the X-Men. Then Onslaught happen and Xavier was the one that betrayed the X-Men. But even after Onslaught, Gambit's trial took place and we found out that he worked for Mr. Sinister. Anyone think that Gambit will still betray the X-Men?

[TinMan]

Well, considering that Remy isn't a real person and that all of his actions are governed by what the writers and the editors want him to do: yes it is possible that he will betray the X-men. But he's also become an extremely popular character, so I don't think that the editors will be willing to piss off so many fans in that way, so until the X-books really need a huge kick in the pants I don't think it will happen.

[The Lucky One]

Yeah, that would be as crazy as, like... fan-favorite Terra betraying the Teen Titans! Never happen.
;)

-D

[Alan2099]

Yeah. Once a week and twice on Tuesdays. Especially if you offered him a Klondike bar.

[TinMan]

Yeah. Once a week and twice on Tuesdays. Especially if you offered him a Klondike bar.

What would you doo-oo-ooo for a Klondike bar? :p

[Teamballin]

What would you doo-oo-ooo for a Klondike bar? :p
you have a point, he is still doing side deals behind the X-Men's back. There so many things: The Morlocks murder, Stole information out of cerebro for Sinister, Work for New Son, Steal from Vargas (good intentions but still), Stole from Moira Mac Taggert. Sinister still has a deal with him and he will collect. Everyone has a price. Check out X-Men #350

[The Lucky One]

Check out X-Men #350

Rather not, thanks. Not until it gets officially retconned.
;)

-D

[TheWolfOfAsgard]

Ok time for me to show my blonde side. What exactly does retconned mean? I think I know but I can't remember.

[The Lucky One]

It's short for retroactive continuity; it's what happens when a later writer makes a change to a character or event's established history that the original writer never intended.

A retcon is the act of a writer "squeezing" something into past storylines when no evidence of it at all existed when those storylines were written. The best example of this in the X-titles is Cable. When Liefeld and Simonson created Cable, he had never been seen, mentioned, or listed in any Marvel comic before. Suddenly, he appeared, and every mutant character who had been around forever was saying, "Ah, Cable, haven't seen you around for a while." Well, duh, he hadn't been invented yet. This mass infusion of history which had never existed before is a classic retcon. racmx'ers also sometimes call Jean Grey's "resurrection" in place of being Phoenix a retcon. While "retcon" is usually used in a derisive, insulting sense, this is more due to the fact that most retcons are the tools of modestly-skilled writers working under deadline with an improper grounding in continuity and thus end up being badly handled, as opposed to any inherent fault in the idea of the retcon.

In the case of UXM #350, the story itself was a retcon, as Gambit was clearly not present at the Mutant Massacre and didn't lead the Marauders there; they trailed a Morlock and Hellfire Club guard couple from San Francisco to the tunnels. As it's such a badly-done retcon, some fans (myself included) basically don't recognize it as in continuity. Gambit wasn't present at the Mutant Massacre, and I'm just waiting for that to be made official.
;)

-D

[TheWolfOfAsgard]

It's short for retroactive continuity; it's what happens when a later writer makes a change to a character or event's established history that the original writer never intended.

A retcon is the act of a writer "squeezing" something into past storylines when no evidence of it at all existed when those storylines were written. The best example of this in the X-titles is Cable. When Liefeld and Simonson created Cable, he had never been seen, mentioned, or listed in any Marvel comic before. Suddenly, he appeared, and every mutant character who had been around forever was saying, "Ah, Cable, haven't seen you around for a while." Well, duh, he hadn't been invented yet. This mass infusion of history which had never existed before is a classic retcon. racmx'ers also sometimes call Jean Grey's "resurrection" in place of being Phoenix a retcon. While "retcon" is usually used in a derisive, insulting sense, this is more due to the fact that most retcons are the tools of modestly-skilled writers working under deadline with an improper grounding in continuity and thus end up being badly handled, as opposed to any inherent fault in the idea of the retcon.

In the case of UXM #350, the story itself was a retcon, as Gambit was clearly not present at the Mutant Massacre and didn't lead the Marauders there; they trailed a Morlock and Hellfire Club guard couple from San Francisco to the tunnels. As it's such a badly-done retcon, some fans (myself included) basically don't recognize it as in continuity. Gambit wasn't present at the Mutant Massacre, and I'm just waiting for that to be made official.
;)

-D





Thanks Lucky. I knew that's what it meant but I couldn't wrap my blonde roots how to break retcon into the two words that were shortened.

[Vegetarian Goat]

Even if Gambit betrayed the X-Men, it's not like they wouldn't take him back as a "probationary member"...

Really, all of these reformed villains should get their own X-Team already...

[Flight]

Oh, lets hope not! That would be horrid :)

[Dizzy D]

Even if Gambit betrayed the X-Men, it's not like they wouldn't take him back as a "probationary member"...

Really, all of these reformed villains should get their own X-Team already...

I'm trying hard to think of an X-men that hasn't been a villain at one point or another, either through possession or their own free will.

[Valmore]

What would you doo-oo-ooo for a Klondike bar? :p

I would betray the X-Men.

For a 6-pack of Klondikes I'd betray the Avengers, too.

[Teamballin]

I'm trying hard to think of an X-men that hasn't been a villain at one point or another, either through possession or their own free will.
Iceman could be one. Cable and Bishop too.

[The Lucky One]

Iceman could be one. Cable and Bishop too.

Iceman's body was possessed by Emma Frost, so he was kind of a villain for a brief time. Cable was practically a villain when he debuted (he told X-Force that one of their primary enemies was the X-Men), and Bishop... well, he did try to kill Gambit that one time. I guess it depends on your definition of villainy.
;)

-D

[Bishop_Proudstar]

Okay, Everyone knows that Gambit is suppose to betray the X-Men. Then Onslaught happen and Xavier was the one that betrayed the X-Men. But even after Onslaught, Gambit's trial took place and we found out that he worked for Mr. Sinister. Anyone think that Gambit will still betray the X-Men?

After I re-read "Onslaught", I got the feeling that Gambit didn't mind just killing Xavier.. He only seemed to see him as a threat, and not as a "family member and mentor in trouble".

I though that Wolverine would be the one to be so stern with Xavier..
He had more compassion than Lebeau..

His supposed "betrayal" will be teased for awhile..

[streator]

the betrayal plot ran its course. gambit can still be shady and not be "the traitor". witness has been revealed to not be an aged lebeau (even though it makes less sense, and was revealed by witness' creator, lobdell). bishop and gambit have long since reconciled. bishop's future may no longer happen.

gambit is my favorite character. being said, i still would have liked him to be witness. not necessarily being "the traitor" but being there to see it all and surviving. surviving the end of the x-men, as was intended originally that is. obviously, that will never come, but it's something i would have enjoyed.

[f4faith]

being said, i still would have liked him to be witness. not necessarily being "the traitor" but being there to see it all and surviving. surviving the end of the x-men, as was intended originally that is. obviously, that will never come, but it's something i would have enjoyed.

Well the Witness, Gambit or not, didn't have to be the traitor even when Lee was writing. The name in and of itself does not imply that nor was anything that Bishop found. Frankly as far as Bishop's "deductions" about Gambit/Witness being the traitor were concerned it was some of the worst deductive reasoning I have ever seen. Nothing indicated that the Witness had anything to do with it except knew what really happened. Frankly Bishop looked like an idiot. Not that the Witness couldn't have been the traitor but given what Bishop actually knew, the list of suspects was endless and to focus only on Gambit when it was that open was poor police work.

And Gambit (or an alternate version of him) could still be the Witness even with the Gambit/Bishop mini where they meet the Witness - dimension/time travel is fully capable of a full powered Gambit as we saw with New Son.

[nubly]

Check out X-Men #350
i cant no one sells it :(

I'm trying hard to think of an X-men that hasn't been a villain at one point or another, either through possession or their own free will.
dazzler, longshot, cannonball, nightcrawler

[Novaya Havoc]

i cant no one sells it :(


dazzler, longshot, cannonball, nightcrawler

Dazz and Longshot were quasi-villains in Inferno, and Dazzler was under Malice.

[moebius]

Kitty? Was Kitty ever evil, intentionally or unintentionally?

And I think Beast has only been replaced by his evil doppelganger, but not actually possesed.

[Dizzy D]

Kitty? Was Kitty ever evil, intentionally or unintentionally?

And I think Beast has only been replaced by his evil doppelganger, but not actually possesed.

Kitty has been possessed by Ogun at several points, she was brainwashed by the Hand and possessed by Sabretooth's evil in Claremont's return on Wolverine and there was the Soulsword trilogy.

Cannonball: used to work for Donald Pierce.
Nightcrawler: possessed by Gravemoss and a future incarnation of him was corrupted by Belasco.

Beast: Sublime in Here Comes Tomorrow?

[The Lucky One]

dazzler, longshot, cannonball, nightcrawler

Cannonball was possessed by Mikhail Rasputin in the New Mutants: Truth or Death mini, and he had turned evil in a possible future the New Mutants visited. Nightcrawler... um, hmm... not sure.

-D

[TinMan]

Kitty has been possessed by Ogun at several points, she was brainwashed by the Hand and possessed by Sabretooth's evil in Claremont's return on Wolverine and there was the Soulsword trilogy.

Cannonball: used to work for Donald Pierce.
Nightcrawler: possessed by Gravemoss and a future incarnation of him was corrupted by Belasco.

Beast: Sublime in Here Comes Tomorrow?

Hmm, that Beast statement can be argued, because that was in a possible FUTURE that was fixed and never therefore happened in cannon continuity, so technically he was never possesed by Sublime at all. I mean none of the X-men even know it happened, the only one that *might* know it happened would be Jean and the other Phoenix incarnations, but the fact that the past was altered could also be argued that they wouldn't even remember.

[nubly]

how could we forget thunderbird, forge, chamber and jubilee??

oh and since you guys are being so picky, then so will i. katie power was made an x-man by kitty pryde. she has never been evil

[The Lucky One]

how could we forget thunderbird, forge, chamber and jubilee??

oh and since you guys are being so picky, then so will i. katie power was made an x-man by kitty pryde. she has never been evil

If we're counting alternate futures, she has- she and the rest of the Pack were common street thieves in Earth X. Hooligans!
:D

Forge was arguably evil when he worked for the government creating machines to take the powers away from his own kind, or when he used the souls of his recently killed fellow soldiers in Vietnam to kill the enemy. The original Thunderbird... um, killed that defenseless buffalo in Giant-Size #1, he's a bastard. And Jubilee tried to steal Robin away from Spoiler... that bitch!

-D

[Dizzy D]

how could we forget thunderbird, forge, chamber and jubilee??

oh and since you guys are being so picky, then so will i. katie power was made an x-man by kitty pryde. she has never been evil

Thunderbird: guy was lucky enough to die before Apocalypse made him an horseman (see Exiles)

Forge: Ask Storm when they started out, she saw him as a villain and even went out to combat him.

Chamber: Read current Weapon X-series; he's brainwashed by Weapon X and does anything they tell him to do.

Jubilee: Last Jim Lee story had Gambit, Jubilee and Lila Cheney brainwashed and attacking Longshot, Beast, Rogue and Cyclops and the Crunch-story in Wolverine had Abcissa, a future version of Jubilee that was Mojo's replacement for Spiral.

[miss5050]

gambit aka severus snape :D

[nubly]

ok how about maggott and sunpyre? im pretty sure neither of them have evil counterparts

[JolieBrunette]

After I re-read "Onslaught", I got the feeling that Gambit didn't mind just killing Xavier.. He only seemed to see him as a threat, and not as a "family member and mentor in trouble".

I disagree. I think Gambit's respect for Xavier can be seen in the way that the Witness kept the legend of the X-Men alive and was prepared to be the object of suspicion himself in order to prevent people from realising that Xavier was the one who betrayed his own dream.

Besides, Gambit is pragmatic. He had to be living in the middle of a civil war between Assassin and Thief. He knows that there is no point getting caught up in emotion when a job has to be done. What does hand-wringing about killing a family member and mentor actually accomplish? It just makes it harder to do a job that has to be done.

ok how about maggott and sunpyre? im pretty sure neither of them have evil counterparts

Maggott's metal slugs (i.e. his digestive system) murdered innocent people without his knowledge. So, part of him is a mass-murdering criminal.

[Tommy]

An X-team staring Emma Frost, Juggernaut, Mystique, Rogue, and Magneto.

Damn we are running out of villains. Lets bring Destiny back from the dead to complete the sisterhood...