The Avengers International Fan Forum Forum Index The Avengers International Fan Forum

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Angels of Death
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Avengers International Fan Forum Forum Index -> The Avengers on Television
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mousemeat
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 4226
Location: Elvis Central, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
Timeless A-Peel wrote:
Well, he's there to do a job by that point. He's been asked to bring Steed in. It's a hard thing for him to do. Being neutral/professional about it probably helps him cope. And really, I've never blamed him for getting annoyed when Steed brings up Purdey. At that point in time, it just sounds like a desperate attempt by Steed to get out of the arrest, and like he's using Gambit's affection for Purdey for his own ends. If someone tried to use someone I cared about as a way to get out of something, I'd be annoyed, too.

(Purdey's supposed to be on vacation at her mother's, btw, which is why it doesn't strike Gambit as odd that she's not around--she's not supposed to be in town. The last time he sees her she's just about to leave. That's why he checks with her mother to confirm Steed's story).

Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things. Lots of his conversations with Purdey touch on all sorts of esoteric topics, and he always engages with her and gives her (often quite tangential) musings thought, rather than dismiss or ignore her. He's happy to learn new things from Steed. So I don't see him as narrow-minded. And he's always willing to help a friend out of a tight spot, often at great cost to himself, which I don't see as selfish. I'm struggling to see how his reaction to Purdey dying is selfish. He cares so much for her that he's willing to do anything to save/avenge her. If Gambit's sentiment is selfish, why isn't Steed's statement that he'd do the same? If Steed had voiced it first, and Gambit had said that he'd help him, would that make Steed selfish? It seems more selfish to me to automatically assume that Steed feels the as passionately about something/someone as he does, or would want to deal with it the same way (especially since what he'd plan to do would likely get him kicked out of his job or arrested or some such in the process).

Anyway, we're never going to agree on this, but heigh ho (as Emma would say). I think Gambit's a very selfless character, and reflective in his own way. Other than when he's kicking down doors. Wink


Again, I don't find him particularly sympathetic in Hostage (or in Obsession, which is a similar story in terms of the leads' dynamics). Granted that he's largely kept out of the loop, he still behaves in what's basically a self-assured manner in attempting to arrest Steed and declining to give the man the benefit of the doubt - again, a man meant to be his friend and colleague. It's the fact that he automatically assumes that Steed is lying about Purdey, which shows that Gambit has a poor understanding of Steed's character, or at least rates Steed far lower as a human being.

His reaction to Purdey's possible death is self-involved in the sense that his first reaction is to consider what it means to him. He does not think about her, about Steed, about anyone except himself. He does not consider other people's emotions. In most of his interactions with Purdey, in fact, he seems to think more about himself and what she thinks of him than he does about anything else - she is important only insofar as she is important to him. So perhaps selfish is the wrong word - self-involved.

Gambit seems be constantly attempting to prove his masculinity, his capabilities, and his intellect against others - usually Steed, sometimes younger male agents. I don't really see much evidence of him being contemplative, nor helping a friend out of a tight spot at cost to himself.

Yeah, of course we're not going to agree, but I do enjoy the conversation. Smile


that's the bauty of threads like this..and forums such as this one...we can certainly wax our thoughts and opinions on any part of the show...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4023
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:
Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things.
To be fair, Gambit is supposed to be an action man, in contrast to the experienced, cunning steed, so it isn't really fair to criticise him for being what the character was written and cast as. Clemens and Spooner didn't know Patrick would be so active still, so played safe. Maybe they were wrong to do that, but Gambit is exactly as he should be.
_________________
Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frankymole wrote:
Timeless A-Peel wrote:
Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things.
To be fair, Gambit is supposed to be an action man, in contrast to the experienced, cunning steed, so it isn't really fair to criticise him for being what the character was written and cast as. Clemens and Spooner didn't know Patrick would be so active still, so played safe. Maybe they were wrong to do that, but Gambit is exactly as he should be.


Well, that's just it - I don't like the character. It's one of those occasions where there's a lot they could have done with the character, but he generally grates on me. He is exactly as he's written, I'm sure of that.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
Again, I don't find him particularly sympathetic in Hostage (or in Obsession, which is a similar story in terms of the leads' dynamics). Granted that he's largely kept out of the loop, he still behaves in what's basically a self-assured manner in attempting to arrest Steed and declining to give the man the benefit of the doubt - again, a man meant to be his friend and colleague. It's the fact that he automatically assumes that Steed is lying about Purdey, which shows that Gambit has a poor understanding of Steed's character, or at least rates Steed far lower as a human being.

His reaction to Purdey's possible death is self-involved in the sense that his first reaction is to consider what it means to him. He does not think about her, about Steed, about anyone except himself. He does not consider other people's emotions. In most of his interactions with Purdey, in fact, he seems to think more about himself and what she thinks of him than he does about anything else - she is important only insofar as she is important to him. So perhaps selfish is the wrong word - self-involved.

Gambit seems be constantly attempting to prove his masculinity, his capabilities, and his intellect against others - usually Steed, sometimes younger male agents. I don't really see much evidence of him being contemplative, nor helping a friend out of a tight spot at cost to himself.

Yeah, of course we're not going to agree, but I do enjoy the conversation. Smile


He's not really in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt--he's under orders. And Steed doesn't really do a lot to help his case. I think the idea that Steed would use Purdey against him does hurt, which is why it annoys him--he can't believe Steed would do something like that. But the way Steed says it just sounds desperate and like he's cornered, willing to say anything. If Steed had just confided in Gambit to begin with, they could have avoided the whole thing. Maybe that's part of the reason Gambit isn't willing to believe him at the end--he assumes that Steed would have asked him for help when he needed it, because Gambit would gladly give it. I think it's the fact that he understands Steed's character that makes the whole thing so hard to swallow--it seems so out-of-character, and yet Steed doesn't tell him anything that would suggest he needs help.

I'm not sure how you can take Gambit wanting to avenge Purdey's death and draw a straight line to "it's all about him." Of course he's devastated by the idea that she might die. That doesn't mean he's not worried about Purdey for her own sake. And there are lots of instances where he worries after Purdey that have nothing to do with him or what he might get out of it. I don't get the sense that, if he wasn't with Purdey, he wouldn't give a damn about what happened to her. He doesn't want her to be unhappy, hurt, or killed. I can't see what's so selfish about that.

Gambit seems pretty matey with his fellow agents on average, and he's always gutted when they die, even the ones that he didn't see eye-to-eye with. As for helping friends out of tight spots at cost to himself, I'm not sure how many times one man has to have the stuffing kicked out of him or get shot to save his friends before it proves he cares--shot both in K is for Kill and Angels of Death, put through the wringer at the end of Hostage. In all three cases Purdey and/or Steed would be dead if Gambit hadn't saved them, but he's the one who takes on the injuries.

And I think Gareth played the role as more than written, actually. I think Gambit as a character rewards the most in terms of rewatches, more so than any of the other leads, because a lot of his little lines and touches can get overlooked if you don't pay attention. The Avengers was always about subverting things, including its characters--they appeared one way, and were actually another. Reading Gambit as a stock action man is the surface reading, just the way reading Purdey as a feminine thing in floaty dresses is. But Purdey's the one who swigs Vodka with Russian agents, and Gambit's the one that feeds the little sparrow on his windowsill and picks up arguments on commitment from last Tuesday. There's more there than meets the eye.
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:
He's not really in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt--he's under orders. And Steed doesn't really do a lot to help his case. I think the idea that Steed would use Purdey against him does hurt, which is why it annoys him--he can't believe Steed would do something like that. But the way Steed says it just sounds desperate and like he's cornered, willing to say anything. If Steed had just confided in Gambit to begin with, they could have avoided the whole thing. Maybe that's part of the reason Gambit isn't willing to believe him at the end--he assumes that Steed would have asked him for help when he needed it, because Gambit would gladly give it. I think it's the fact that he understands Steed's character that makes the whole thing so hard to swallow--it seems so out-of-character, and yet Steed doesn't tell him anything that would suggest he needs help.

I'm not sure how you can take Gambit wanting to avenge Purdey's death and draw a straight line to "it's all about him." Of course he's devastated by the idea that she might die. That doesn't mean he's not worried about Purdey for her own sake. And there are lots of instances where he worries after Purdey that have nothing to do with him or what he might get out of it. I don't get the sense that, if he wasn't with Purdey, he wouldn't give a damn about what happened to her. He doesn't want her to be unhappy, hurt, or killed. I can't see what's so selfish about that.

Gambit seems pretty matey with his fellow agents on average, and he's always gutted when they die, even the ones that he didn't see eye-to-eye with. As for helping friends out of tight spots at cost to himself, I'm not sure how many times one man has to have the stuffing kicked out of him or get shot to save his friends before it proves he cares--shot both in K is for Kill and Angels of Death, put through the wringer at the end of Hostage. In all three cases Purdey and/or Steed would be dead if Gambit hadn't saved them, but he's the one who takes on the injuries.

And I think Gareth played the role as more than written, actually. I think Gambit as a character rewards the most in terms of rewatches, more so than any of the other leads, because a lot of his little lines and touches can get overlooked if you don't pay attention. The Avengers was always about subverting things, including its characters--they appeared one way, and were actually another. Reading Gambit as a stock action man is the surface reading, just the way reading Purdey as a feminine thing in floaty dresses is. But Purdey's the one who swigs Vodka with Russian agents, and Gambit's the one that feeds the little sparrow on his windowsill and picks up arguments on commitment from last Tuesday. There's more there than meets the eye.


I disagree. He is in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt - in fact, he's probably the only one, because he's supposed to know Steed the best. But he doesn't.

My point in his reaction to Purdey's death is that his immediate response is "I must avenge her because her death affects me." There is a self-involvement there - he relates to Purdey as though she is reflective of him and his desires, not her own person. Her death is going to affect him and that is his first thought. While I do believe that he has a great deal of affection for her, I do not quite buy that it's a selfless one. Hence he fails to mark that anyone else could be affected by her death.

Granted that I've not seen TNA quite as many times as I've seen other eras of the show, I admit that the depth of Gambit's character continues to elude me. While he has his moments (the scene in Sleeper is quite cute), he seems to be largely a surface character. I think he's meant at times to have depth, but it becomes more an illusion of depth than anything more substantial. Some of this might have to do with the limitations of the show itself - it only has 26 episodes, after all. However Purdey does seem to gain more substance as time passes; Gambit doesn't appear to.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
I disagree. He is in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt - in fact, he's probably the only one, because he's supposed to know Steed the best. But he doesn't.

My point in his reaction to Purdey's death is that his immediate response is "I must avenge her because her death affects me." There is a self-involvement there - he relates to Purdey as though she is reflective of him and his desires, not her own person. Her death is going to affect him and that is his first thought. While I do believe that he has a great deal of affection for her, I do not quite buy that it's a selfless one. Hence he fails to mark that anyone else could be affected by her death.

Granted that I've not seen TNA quite as many times as I've seen other eras of the show, I admit that the depth of Gambit's character continues to elude me. While he has his moments (the scene in Sleeper is quite cute), he seems to be largely a surface character. I think he's meant at times to have depth, but it becomes more an illusion of depth than anything more substantial. Some of this might have to do with the limitations of the show itself - it only has 26 episodes, after all. However Purdey does seem to gain more substance as time passes; Gambit doesn't appear to.


He gives Steed the benefit of the doubt right up until he's ordered to bring him in. But I think if Steed hadn't blocked him so many times up to that point, he would've been more inclined to believe his story about Purdey. But in the end it just ends up sounding desperate. I mean, when Steed says "It's Purdey," it even sounds like someone scrabbling around trying to think "Boy, what could I use to throw him off" to me, and I know what's going on in the plot! Maybe Gambit should have given him the benefit of the doubt, but Steed could have let Gambit know what was going on and asked for help. Steed's very clever. You're telling me he couldn't have thought of some way to tip Gambit off without alerting the kidnappers, at least to give him something to indicate that he was under some sort of duress. But he doesn't. Gambit gives him the benefit of the doubt for much longer than the evidence would indicate, and even after Steed's knocked him out, Gambit checks his story anyway. If Gambit does doubt Steed, it's obvious not a very strong doubt, because he doesn't take the fact that he attacked him as a reason to just up on him altogether.

I still don't get where "I must avenge her because her death affects me". All he says is that he'll avenge her death. He doesn't say anything along the lines of "how dare they kill my partner" or similar. Someone tried to kill Purdey. He'll make them pay for it, regardless of personal consequence. I fail to see how it's different to Steed saying he'll hunt them down, too, or that they can't let her die. Is that selfish? Or when Steed's threatening to hurt/kill people when they've got Emma or Tara or whoever. Is that selfish, too? And anyway, he follows up Steed's comment that they're all expendable with, "I know the rules, Steed. But it is Purdey." Not "our Purdey" or my Purdey" or "our partner/friend." Just Purdey. Doesn't that suggest that he sees her life as valuable in and of itself?

Gambit did get more chances to have depth in season one, I agree. But after Patrick complained, his character got cut down to give Steed more screentime, and got less attention characterisationwise as a result. Despite that, Gareth does manage to get lots of little things in there, but he's not showy about it. He can underplay things quite beautifully.
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4023
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it time to bring out the "thicker cardboard" quote? Smile
_________________
Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:
He gives Steed the benefit of the doubt right up until he's ordered to bring him in. But I think if Steed hadn't blocked him so many times up to that point, he would've been more inclined to believe his story about Purdey. But in the end it just ends up sounding desperate. I mean, when Steed says "It's Purdey," it even sounds like someone scrabbling around trying to think "Boy, what could I use to throw him off" to me, and I know what's going on in the plot! Maybe Gambit should have given him the benefit of the doubt, but Steed could have let Gambit know what was going on and asked for help. Steed's very clever. You're telling me he couldn't have thought of some way to tip Gambit off without alerting the kidnappers, at least to give him something to indicate that he was under some sort of duress. But he doesn't. Gambit gives him the benefit of the doubt for much longer than the evidence would indicate, and even after Steed's knocked him out, Gambit checks his story anyway. If Gambit does doubt Steed, it's obvious not a very strong doubt, because he doesn't take the fact that he attacked him as a reason to just up on him altogether.

I still don't get where "I must avenge her because her death affects me". All he says is that he'll avenge her death. He doesn't say anything along the lines of "how dare they kill my partner" or similar. Someone tried to kill Purdey. He'll make them pay for it, regardless of personal consequence. I fail to see how it's different to Steed saying he'll hunt them down, too, or that they can't let her die. Is that selfish? Or when Steed's threatening to hurt/kill people when they've got Emma or Tara or whoever. Is that selfish, too? And anyway, he follows up Steed's comment that they're all expendable with, "I know the rules, Steed. But it is Purdey." Not "our Purdey" or my Purdey" or "our partner/friend." Just Purdey. Doesn't that suggest that he sees her life as valuable in and of itself?

Gambit did get more chances to have depth in season one, I agree. But after Patrick complained, his character got cut down to give Steed more screentime, and got less attention characterisationwise as a result. Despite that, Gareth does manage to get lots of little things in there, but he's not showy about it. He can underplay things quite beautifully.


OK, what it sounds like is you think that Gambit's reaction in Hostage is Steed's fault, while I think it's Gambit's fault. I'll repeat that I do think that the reason why Steed doesn't tell Gambit about Purdey's kidnapping initially is because he's afraid that Gambit's reaction will simply result in her death. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate. Given Gambit's previous tendencies to shoot first, I don't think it's a major stretch.

I'm not certain how else to put it - Gambit's first reaction to Purdey's possible death is to consider what it means to him, as though he is the only one affected by her death. His statement is something along the lines of "If she dies, I'll find them." He completely misses or fails to consider that there is another man in the car with the exact same claim on loyalty to Purdey as he has. Then he's reminded that Steed cares too - that there are, in effect, other people in her life who care about whether she lives or dies. I'm saying that his self-involvement blinds him to the fact that there are other human beings, including her, who will be affected. I will grant that Steed has a similar reaction to Emma or Tara or Cathy being put in danger, but he does not couch them in the terms "I will avenge her death" - usually when Emma's in danger, his statement is simply "Where is she?" (And really, since Steed only has one partner, there's no chance for debate about who will care more if the third partner dies).

I do not see great depth in Gambit's character in general. While Purdey develops over time, I do not see him progressing in any sense, regardless of screentime. As I say, maybe if the show continued for longer I would be able to see it better, but it didn't. The "thicker cardboard" argument is all well and good if you're willing to buy it, but despite the TNA characters being provided with greater narrative backstory within the confines of the show, I don't think any of them are "deeper" than the original Avengers. Patrick Macnee, Diana Rigg and Honor Blackman gave their characters depth via their performances, despite not having a great deal of visible or narrative development.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
OK, what it sounds like is you think that Gambit's reaction in Hostage is Steed's fault, while I think it's Gambit's fault. I'll repeat that I do think that the reason why Steed doesn't tell Gambit about Purdey's kidnapping initially is because he's afraid that Gambit's reaction will simply result in her death. Whether that's fair or not is up for debate. Given Gambit's previous tendencies to shoot first, I don't think it's a major stretch.

I'm not certain how else to put it - Gambit's first reaction to Purdey's possible death is to consider what it means to him, as though he is the only one affected by her death. His statement is something along the lines of "If she dies, I'll find them." He completely misses or fails to consider that there is another man in the car with the exact same claim on loyalty to Purdey as he has. Then he's reminded that Steed cares too - that there are, in effect, other people in her life who care about whether she lives or dies. I'm saying that his self-involvement blinds him to the fact that there are other human beings, including her, who will be affected. I will grant that Steed has a similar reaction to Emma or Tara or Cathy being put in danger, but he does not couch them in the terms "I will avenge her death" - usually when Emma's in danger, his statement is simply "Where is she?" (And really, since Steed only has one partner, there's no chance for debate about who will care more if the third partner dies).

I do not see great depth in Gambit's character in general. While Purdey develops over time, I do not see him progressing in any sense, regardless of screentime. As I say, maybe if the show continued for longer I would be able to see it better, but it didn't. The "thicker cardboard" argument is all well and good if you're willing to buy it, but despite the TNA characters being provided with greater narrative backstory within the confines of the show, I don't think any of them are "deeper" than the original Avengers. Patrick Macnee, Diana Rigg and Honor Blackman gave their characters depth via their performances, despite not having a great deal of visible or narrative development.


Maybe Gambit should have given him one last chance at the end, but he wasn't in a position to professionally. And if he should have, that doesn't mean that Steed shouldn't have given Gambit the benefit of the doubt and told him what was going on to begin with. Steed's not perfect--he is capable of making the wrong call once in awhile. I'm sorry, but the last thing Gambit would do is jeopardise Purdey's life, regardless of his approach. Steed knows that, and the fact that the kidnappers explicitly tell him not to warn Gambit should tip him off that they worry about Gambit interfering with their plan. I suspect it has more to do with Steed wanting to keep Gambit out of is so that he doesn't get implicated if it all goes wrong and Steed winds up dead or arrested. But that doesn't mean it's the right call. But given the way Steed's been acting, Gambit gives him more leeway than anyone else does, including after Steed attacks him. You seem to be arguing that Steed should be able to act with impunity without consequence.

I think you'll find that the first thing Gambit says in the car is "Steed, if she dies," so first off, he's engaging Steed on the issue right from the start. Second, I'm not sure how Gambit can be expected to speak for anyone but himself in this instance. To speak on what Steed could/should do regarding Purdey, to assume that Steed feels or would react the same way, would be profoundly arrogant. The way he words his opening line is actually quite open and respectful of Steed--it expresses how he feels while giving Steed to say his piece, without imposing the way he feels on Steed. Furthermore, when Steed tells him that he'll help hunt them down, does Gambit tell that no, he's going to do it on his own? No. It'd also be wrong to assume that Steed would help him on his vendetta. It'd be wrong to speak for Steed at all, and Gambit doesn't presume to. But he never shuts Steed down or says that he cares more of the two. But he can only speak for himself.

(And the fact that Steed never has anyone to talk about how he feels when Emma or whoever is in trouble doesn't change motivation. He frequently puts an assignment at risk to save his partners. Other people he doesn't care about he would never take that risk for. That means Steed jeopardises the well-being of his country for people that he cares about. Isn't that "selfish"?)
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:
Maybe Gambit should have given him one last chance at the end, but he wasn't in a position to professionally. And if he should have, that doesn't mean that Steed shouldn't have given Gambit the benefit of the doubt and told him what was going on to begin with. Steed's not perfect--he is capable of making the wrong call once in awhile. I'm sorry, but the last thing Gambit would do is jeopardise Purdey's life, regardless of his approach. Steed knows that, and the fact that the kidnappers explicitly tell him not to warn Gambit should tip him off that they worry about Gambit interfering with their plan. I suspect it has more to do with Steed wanting to keep Gambit out of is so that he doesn't get implicated if it all goes wrong and Steed winds up dead or arrested. But that doesn't mean it's the right call. But given the way Steed's been acting, Gambit gives him more leeway than anyone else does, including after Steed attacks him. You seem to be arguing that Steed should be able to act with impunity without consequence.

I think you'll find that the first thing Gambit says in the car is "Steed, if she dies," so first off, he's engaging Steed on the issue right from the start. Second, I'm not sure how Gambit can be expected to speak for anyone but himself in this instance. To speak on what Steed could/should do regarding Purdey, to assume that Steed feels or would react the same way, would be profoundly arrogant. The way he words his opening line is actually quite open and respectful of Steed--it expresses how he feels while giving Steed to say his piece, without imposing the way he feels on Steed. Furthermore, when Steed tells him that he'll help hunt them down, does Gambit tell that no, he's going to do it on his own? No. It'd also be wrong to assume that Steed would help him on his vendetta. It'd be wrong to speak for Steed at all, and Gambit doesn't presume to. But he never shuts Steed down or says that he cares more of the two. But he can only speak for himself.

(And the fact that Steed never has anyone to talk about how he feels when Emma or whoever is in trouble doesn't change motivation. He frequently puts an assignment at risk to save his partners. Other people he doesn't care about he would never take that risk for. That means Steed jeopardises the well-being of his country for people that he cares about. Isn't that "selfish"?)


And I'm saying that he was in a position to give Steed the benefit of the doubt - it's not like either of these men play by professional rules 3/4s of the time. Maybe Steed did make a wrong call - but by the same token it seems to be based in his fear that Gambit would inadvertently do something that would put Purdey in danger. Again, I don't think that's an extreme assumption to make, given what we know about Gambit. I am not at all saying that Steed should be able to act with impunity, but his analysis of the situation seems to be based in his knowledge of Gambit's personality - while Gambit's analysis seems to disregard what he knows about Steed (this in a show that features Steed being accused of treachery pretty constantly with little basis).

I really don't know how else to put it, except to reiterate what I said about Gambit viewing Purdey's death in relation to himself and his desire for vengeance - a pretty basic narrative ploy in which the male character is given impetus for revenge via the death of a woman, which places greater importance on the man's vengeance than on the woman's life. This is the way that the dialogue is written - and it could have been written differently. There's no reason that that scene has to be a particular way.

Yeah, Steed pretty constantly values his partners lives over everything else, including his country, and that can be viewed as a selfish impulse. (Although he does generally try to keep innocent people from being killed, if he can). But what I'm trying to say is that the dynamic in TNA is different - there are three partners, not two, and neither partner has a greater "claim" on the others. The push and pull of the series often comes down to Gambit and Steed with Purdey in the middle - which is what's happening in Target. I'm not saying that Gambit is wrong for wanting to avenge Purdey - merely that the way that he talks and treats her places greater emphasis on himself and his suffering.

Anyways, I fully admit that I'm more critical of Gambit, and that there are things that irk me when Gambit does them but I'm more willing to forgive in Steed. But I'm not trying to be unfair to him, just questioning some of his behaviors and attitudes.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers


Last edited by Lhbizness on Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4023
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's the thing about The New Avengers. Loads of Steed's oldest friends turned out to be traitors, sleeper agents, or imposters (doubles). Even his girlfriend in "House of Cards". If Steed or Gambit had given more benefit of the doubt to their bosses, colleagues, karate training partners, wives and girlfriends etc - they'd be dead. The Enemy uses subterfuge and subversion of our nearest and dearest to catch and kill us! Arguably Gambit gave Steed too much benefit of the doubt. He could've been killed if this was another Prator-style substitution.
_________________
Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frankymole wrote:
That's the thing about The New Avengers. Loads of Steed's oldest friends turned out to be traitors, sleeper agents, or imposters (doubles). Even his girlfriend in "House of Cards". If Steed or Gambit had given more benefit of the doubt to their bosses, colleagues, karate training partners, wives and girlfriends etc - they'd be dead. The Enemy uses subterfuge and subversion of our nearest and dearest to catch and kill us! Arguably Gambit gave Steed too much benefit of the doubt. He could've been killed if this was another Prator-style substitution.


It is one of the things I really do not like about TNA - but again, how many times can you accuse Steed of being a traitor and be proved totally wrong before you accept that he's not a traitor?

(And having re-watched the scene in Target, Gambit doesn't say that he's going to hunt anyone down until AFTER Steed says that he "feels the same." Gambit says, "I'll hunt them down." Steed says, "We'll hunt them down. She means as much to me as she does to you.")
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
Frankymole wrote:
That's the thing about The New Avengers. Loads of Steed's oldest friends turned out to be traitors, sleeper agents, or imposters (doubles). Even his girlfriend in "House of Cards". If Steed or Gambit had given more benefit of the doubt to their bosses, colleagues, karate training partners, wives and girlfriends etc - they'd be dead. The Enemy uses subterfuge and subversion of our nearest and dearest to catch and kill us! Arguably Gambit gave Steed too much benefit of the doubt. He could've been killed if this was another Prator-style substitution.


It is one of the things I really do not like about TNA - but again, how many times can you accuse Steed of being a traitor and be proved totally wrong before you accept that he's not a traitor?

(And having re-watched the scene in Target, Gambit doesn't say that he's going to hunt anyone down until AFTER Steed says that he "feels the same." Gambit says, "I'll hunt them down." Steed says, "We'll hunt them down. She means as much to me as she does to you.")


Yes, but just because Steed feels strongly about Purdey doesn't mean he'd necessarily react in the same way if she died. Gambit puts forward how he'll deal with it. Steed chips in that he'll do the same. It'd be wrong for Gambit to expect Steed to process his grief the same way. But I don't see him and Steed "competing" over their grief for Purdey. They're voicing how they feel without judging one another for it. They're united in the fact that they care about her, but neither would ever presume to speak for the other about it.

But I really don't see that Gambit's putting Purdey's life below his need for vengeance. He wants her to live. He wants to save her, but he knows she might not make it and that there's only so much he can do for her. If she doesn't, avenging her is the next best thing he can do for her. If that's selfish, doesn't Steed volunteering to do the same make him just as bad? If Purdey did the same for either of them (and she would, unquestionably), would she be selfish? Is Emma being selfish when she pummels--and nearly kills--one of the villagers in Murdersville because she's so upset about Paul Beresford's murder? To a certain extent all grief is selfish--we usually grieve for people because they mean something to us. But I don't sense that Steed and Gambit are putting their own needs above Purdey's life.

Quote:
Anyways, I fully admit that I'm more critical of Gambit, and that there are things that irk me when Gambit does them but I'm more willing to forgive in Steed. But I'm not trying to be unfair to him, just questioning some of his behaviors and attitudes.


I think therein lies the problem. The reason I keep bringing up counterpoints where Steed's acted less-than-admirably is not because I'm trying to run down the character or because I don't like Steed, but because you can accuse Steed of a lot of the same things that you accuse Gambit of. But when Steed does them he's a wonderful guy and is totally within his rights, and when Gambit does them he's an awful human being, and logically reconciling that is difficult. I get that you don't like Gambit. Fair enough. I like both Gambit and Steed, and they both deserve to be held to the same standard. I don't see Gambit's actions as any more selfish than Steed lighting Piggy Warren's moustache on fire to extract information on Emma whereabouts. Maybe Gambit could have given Steed one more chance, but Steed also made the wrong call by not confiding in him in the first place. Neither one of them is perfect, but neither of them is a complete jerk, either.
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see Gambit's impulse for vengeance as selfish, but rather the way he states it - the way he talks shows both a disregard that there's another person in the car who has just professed to feel the same way he does, and an emphasis on his desire for vengeance vs. an independent valuation of Purdey's life. She becomes his motive. It seems an example of his self-involvement. Other dynamics in The Avengers can't work the same way because there is no third partner.

I don't think Gambit's an awful human being - I think he's self-involved, more so than most other characters on the show. He's an action character trope, but he does not act badly most of the time - I do feel that his self-involvement is grating and makes me unsympathetic towards him. I think I'm harder on him than on Steed because we have seen the development and progression of Steed's character across the span of many years - so it's easier to understand where his character is coming from. But by the same token, you seem as ready to put the blame on Steed as I am to put the blame on Gambit.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mousemeat
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 4226
Location: Elvis Central, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
I don't see Gambit's impulse for vengeance as selfish, but rather the way he states it - the way he talks shows both a disregard that there's another person in the car who has just professed to feel the same way he does, and an emphasis on his desire for vengeance vs. an independent valuation of Purdey's life. She becomes his motive. It seems an example of his self-involvement. Other dynamics in The Avengers can't work the same way because there is no third partner.

I don't think Gambit's an awful human being - I think he's self-involved, more so than most other characters on the show. He's an action character trope, but he does not act badly most of the time - I do feel that his self-involvement is grating and makes me unsympathetic towards him. I think I'm harder on him than on Steed because we have seen the development and progression of Steed's character across the span of many years - so it's easier to understand where his character is coming from. But by the same token, you seem as ready to put the blame on Steed as I am to put the blame on Gambit.


always like em..he was a counterpoint to steed. after all, the show didn't need a younger version of steed..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
I don't see Gambit's impulse for vengeance as selfish, but rather the way he states it - the way he talks shows both a disregard that there's another person in the car who has just professed to feel the same way he does, and an emphasis on his desire for vengeance vs. an independent valuation of Purdey's life. She becomes his motive. It seems an example of his self-involvement. Other dynamics in The Avengers can't work the same way because there is no third partner.

I don't think Gambit's an awful human being - I think he's self-involved, more so than most other characters on the show. He's an action character trope, but he does not act badly most of the time - I do feel that his self-involvement is grating and makes me unsympathetic towards him. I think I'm harder on him than on Steed because we have seen the development and progression of Steed's character across the span of many years - so it's easier to understand where his character is coming from. But by the same token, you seem as ready to put the blame on Steed as I am to put the blame on Gambit.


In the instances we've discussed I am, yes. But I'm not "harder" on Steed all the way around. Most of the time he's got the right idea--by TNA he's downright philosophical. But he also does things I disagree with on occasion, not really in the Emma/Tara eras, but frequently in the Keel/Gale eras, and also sometimes in TNA, and I find it difficult to let them pass "because he's Steed." The development span of his character makes his missteps seem more egregious, I think, particularly by TNA, because I know he knows better. But even putting that aside, I have trouble reconciling arguments when two characters behave the same way in the same circumstances, and only one is condemned for it. It bemuses me.

But it's all down to perception in the end. Gambit always seems selfless to me, particularly in the way he treats his partners. I don't see him as being self-involved. But I think we've established that on both fronts. Smile
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:
In the instances we've discussed I am, yes. But I'm not "harder" on Steed all the way around. Most of the time he's got the right idea--by TNA he's downright philosophical. But he also does things I disagree with on occasion, not really in the Emma/Tara eras, but frequently in the Keel/Gale eras, and also sometimes in TNA, and I find it difficult to let them pass "because he's Steed." The development span of his character makes his missteps seem more egregious, I think, particularly by TNA, because I know he knows better. But even putting that aside, I have trouble reconciling arguments when two characters behave the same way in the same circumstances, and only one is condemned for it. It bemuses me.

But it's all down to perception in the end. Gambit always seems selfless to me, particularly in the way he treats his partners. I don't see him as being self-involved. But I think we've established that on both fronts. Smile


I don't really see any instances in TNA where Steed behaves badly - some of the things that you've identified as missteps or mistakes seem natural to me (and I think that you're completely wrong on his behavior in Obsession, based on what you've said). Nor do I see instances of Steed and Gambit behaving the same way in the same circumstances, given the nature of the dynamics of the different eras.

I'll give you Steed's bad behavior in the Gale era (I'm not going to comment on Keel, because we don't see it) - Steed often manipulates Cathy and especially Venus and while I don't find that fully condemns his character, it certainly does complicate the audience's feelings towards him. But neither do I think that Steed and Gambit ever behave the same way in TNA - so I'm not giving Gambit hell for doing the same thing that Steed does, during the same period. When you come down to it, I think Gambit thinks more about himself than anyone else.

But it seems like your arguments about Gambit's behavior in Target, Hostage, and Obsession are pretty much the same as my arguments about Steed's behavior in Hostage and Obsession - and you think Gambit is justified in what he does, while Steed should know better. I actually kind of despise Gambit in Obsession - and both men are completely off-course in their understanding of the situation. At least Steed tries to understand her, even if he gets it wrong.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4023
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:

But I really don't see that Gambit's putting Purdey's life below his need for vengeance. He wants her to live. He wants to save her, but he knows she might not make it and that there's only so much he can do for her. If she doesn't, avenging her is the next best thing he can do for her.
They are "The [New] Avengers", after all Smile Vengeance comes with the territory...
_________________
Last watched: The Man in the Mirror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
I don't really see any instances in TNA where Steed behaves badly - some of the things that you've identified as missteps or mistakes seem natural to me (and I think that you're completely wrong on his behavior in Obsession, based on what you've said). Nor do I see instances of Steed and Gambit behaving the same way in the same circumstances, given the nature of the dynamics of the different eras.

I'll give you Steed's bad behavior in the Gale era (I'm not going to comment on Keel, because we don't see it) - Steed often manipulates Cathy and especially Venus and while I don't find that fully condemns his character, it certainly does complicate the audience's feelings towards him. But neither do I think that Steed and Gambit ever behave the same way in TNA - so I'm not giving Gambit hell for doing the same thing that Steed does, during the same period. When you come down to it, I think Gambit thinks more about himself than anyone else.

But it seems like your arguments about Gambit's behavior in Target, Hostage, and Obsession are pretty much the same as my arguments about Steed's behavior in Hostage and Obsession - and you think Gambit is justified in what he does, while Steed should know better. I actually kind of despise Gambit in Obsession - and both men are completely off-course in their understanding of the situation. At least Steed tries to understand her, even if he gets it wrong.


Well, we're just rehashing the same arguments, so I'm not going to go into it all over again. But bottom line, I don't think Gambit's selfish. I do think he often acts more for the sake of others, rather than himself. I don't think Steed's inherently selfish, either, but he's more dedicated to the job, and isn't above using people or misdirecting them if needed. It's part of the reason he's such a good agent, but it bleeds into his personal relationships occasionally, and he doesn't treat people the way he should sometimes as result. It's most pronounced in the Gale era, but it surfaces on occasion in TNA as well.

(And I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong regarding Obsession. Steed presumes too much, and acts on those presumptions without consulting Purdey. He had no right to invite Doomer to the party, nor to tell her how to deal with the issue when he didn't have all the facts. He didn't intentionally misread it, but he could have consulted her first, or at least got a better grip on the facts. Gambit, in contrast, goes straight to the source and gently engages Purdey on the issue. They both have good intentions, but Gambit doesn't go over Purdey's head on it.)
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frankymole wrote:
Timeless A-Peel wrote:

But I really don't see that Gambit's putting Purdey's life below his need for vengeance. He wants her to live. He wants to save her, but he knows she might not make it and that there's only so much he can do for her. If she doesn't, avenging her is the next best thing he can do for her.
They are "The [New] Avengers", after all Smile Vengeance comes with the territory...


This is true. Does "new" vengeance differ from the original brand, I wonder? Wink
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Avengers International Fan Forum Forum Index -> The Avengers on Television All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com

Free Web Hosting | File Hosting | Photo Gallery | Matrimonial


Powered by PhpBB.BizHat.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com