Talk:Rachel Summers

Rachel Grey

Does anybody actually believe that Rachel Grey and Rachel Summers are the same person? They act completely different and many of the things Rachel Summers knew and was capable of doing, Rachel Grey is not (like walk in heels, Rachel Summers not only walked in heels, but one of her costumes was known for it's heels. Rachel Grey, however, is incapable of that). Rachel Summers also is suppose to be without the Pheonix Force, but Rachel Grey has had several phoenix manifestations. 216.215.245.26

• I have noticed this aswell. Rachel had the power cosmic through Phoenix, and thereby access to all the knowledge of the infinite cosmos, and power unimaginable. In her adventure in Excalibur she did things on the same power level as Dark Phoenix. Without any training, she was able to travel through time and dimensions. She was able to cause any sort of molecular rearrangement she wanted. She may have lost her source of all that power, but I don't see why she should suddenly lose all her natural skills, and forgot how to use telekinetic abilities. This woman went to the end of time and had infinite knowledge. Then she decided it was time to go to college? How about her personality? She has been married, seen her husband killed before her eyes, and been a mutant assassin, and that was all before she joined Excalibur. How does she have the personallity (and appearance) of a 16 year old all of a sudden? She used to have a rebellious independant flare to her personality, and now she just seems like a naive, depressed little girl. Dorin 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I tend to also agree. The Rachel I know from Excalibur only resembles the one in the X-Men comics. I too also thought back to the high heels moment and thought that Rachel always wore 6 inch stelletos when she lived in England. If anyone, Kitty would be the most uncomfortable in high heels. With the number of psychic battles she's had, which includes the years she used her telepathy in her alternate future, I also find it hard to believe that she could be so helpless against Emma Frost. I'm wondering if sometime in the future Rachel Grey will be met by a Rachel Summers. A little too much like Psylocke's story for my taste, but its the only thing that makes sense. Artemisboy 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • It appears she was reborn at the end of time where Cable found her - it is quite possible that this also affected her mind as both, mind and boy, appear to be quit younger than during her days with Excalibur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.12.155 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Grey and Rachel Summers are the same person. After Cable's future was averted she was kicked back into the timestream because she was already an temporal anomaly. Another thing to remember is that Chris Claremont has stated that Rachel is unique in the Marvel Multiverse in that she does not have an actual counter part in another universe. There may be other Rachel Summers or Greys, depending on what you want to call her, but they are different due to unknown reasons that have yet to be explained. It is definately the same Rachel. Keep in mind that people do change and let's face the facts, she was shunted 2000 years into the future, then thrown back into the timestream and rescued by Cable. I think those things would impact her greatly. I noticed you cited that she had trouble walking in heels and there were some other inconsistencies, but those could just be attributed to the writers. We've seen it before with other characters so I do not know why anyone would think that Rachel would be exempt from these editorial mistakes. Just my thoughts.Drunknesmonsta (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Omega declaration?

"Rachel may be an Omega-level mutant who possesses the psionic powers of telepathy including psychometry and telekinesis as well as limited time manipulation abilities. [Rachel was only ever referred to as an omega contact by a Sentinel fifteen years before the term had a definition. It should also be noted that a variety of other super-powered characters, mutant and non-mutant alike were also referred to as contacts. The term 'omega' was coined by Charles Xavier, and no Sentinel would have had access to his terminology prior to the Operation: Zero Tolerance story arc, which occurred in 2001. Thusly, it is unlikely that this one-off usage constitutes Rachel being an omega mutant under the current understanding of the word.]"

Since the term 'Omega' had no meaning in Marvel canon(as the story took place fifteen years before omega had an established meaning), and a sentinel would have no way to access Xavier's files (who originally created the term), does a mutant hunting robot labeling her an 'omega contact' really justify adding this 'maybe an omega mutant' line? The sentinel identified other threats(non-mutants) as contacts as well, so it is clear that contact DOESN'T mean mutant. Thusly wouldn't omega contact NOT mean omega mutant? It would seem to make more sense to say, simply, "Rachel is an extremely powerful mutant who possesses...."

That is, unless someone ELSE has evidence that she's an omega. I know in the "198 files" it lists all the mutants. All the CONFIRMED omega mutants are noted as such in these files. Rachel's file, however, makes NO NOTE of her omega status.

Coincidence? Doubtful.

Further more; here is the ONLY reference to Rachel being an omega ANYTHING (to my knowledge);

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9538/11yd0.jpg http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uxm208page08sf6.jpg

As you can see from these two pages, an omega contact is simply a contact (mutant or otherwise) who is on par with the Nimrod unit. It has nothing to do with omega power level. This occurence is the only time I know of that Rachel and 'Omega' were ever even mentioned in the same sentence in-canon. Fifteen years BEFORE the first mention of an 'omega mutant,'

http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeanbobbyqy0.jpg

Seen here.

Example from the 198 files, Iceman, a KNOWN omega-level mutant;

http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=icemanga8.jpg

Another example from the 198 files, Quentin Quire, a KNOWN omega-level mutant;

http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmenthe198files33ck4.jpg

One more, just to drive the point home, Elixir;

http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmenthe198files14vv1.jpg

Now, Rachel's entry;

http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rachelnooba5.jpg

While it says that she is a severe threat, the word 'omega' is never used. Not a single time.

129.120.244.92 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)1:23 pm May 5 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.244.92 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

There has been no discussion regarding this, assuming no one objects by the end of the day, I am going to go ahead and take action.13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)~May 10, 2007

The proposed paragraph adds nothing since the wikipedia article is meant to be written so as to be capable of explaining to those unfamiliar with the subject and what you have added is not. Further, since the sentinel which referred to Rachel as such was from the future, in a time line where Xavier's school was successfully invaded we cannot work from the presumption that it would not be familiar with Xavier's terminology. Given that it would likely have access to both Xavier's and Ahab's extensive files on Rachel and is the most advanced of any sentinel observed then it is most assuredly qualified to do so.

Also, how is it important that the term was only capitalised upon fifteen years later? The comics are rife with dangling plotlines and we have no knowledge if this simply wasn't meant to be the first time it was employed. While I doubt that it was intended as such we are not the ones qualified to make that statement. Claremont and the X-editors are.

Regarding the 198 files - does this mean that anyone not on that list is not a mutant as well? Despite having seen many other mutants in the comic books. Also remembering that it is written from the (limited) perspective of O.N.E not an omniscient third person narrator. O.N.E is also less technologically advanced than Nimrod and doesn't deny her status either. Also, Mr. Immortal was not in the 198 files, yet has been confirmed by editors, are we to then presume he is not Omega by his exclusion?

Additionally, your inference of what the Nimrod sentinel meant by Omega is personal interpretation and has no place in a wikipedia article. However, a quote from either Claremont or the X-editors as to what Nimrod intended would change the literal (and thus canonical) meaning.

Finally, if you wish to engage in an analysis of the subjects status as omega - which is presented in the comic - then the Omega mutant article would be a more appropriate place in which to hold it since we may expect that article to educate the reader on just what an Omega is. Unlike this one. It also would probably be better to confine the inevitable edit wars which ensue by keeping an Omega analysis/contention contained within the Omega article instead of spreading it to the character profiles.

Ergo I'm reverting your edit - should a quote from a relevant authority be supplied then it would suffice to remove the Omega term from the article rather than inserting the quote and contentions. Otherwise that should stay as is until a relevant authority has confirmed an alternative interpretation.

203.51.77.136 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting point has been brought up. If you look at the scans the user above posted you'll notice that the classification system Nimrod uses applies to mutants as well as humans. While the system for Omega, Alpha and Beta mutants ONLY applies to mutants. Meaning they were two different classification systems. Nimrod even explains what an Omega Class Subject means in his classification unique system. "Class Omega Subjects are on par with this unit"

Apart from that occurence where she was cited as an Omega Class Threat which as explained by Nimrod means something completely different to Omega Level Mutant she's never been cited one using the Omega classification system. So I feel this should be further discussed. From my perspective there isn't any evidence to warrant her being deemed one. Even now in Warsong we learn that the Phoenix Host/Omega thing was wrong as Celeste could act as one in Warsong. IRRC Mr Immortal isn't your normal Homo superior mutant, he's above Homo superior(Homo superior supreme) and in a species class of his own. Therefore he wouldn't be in the 198 files. 86.43.172.38 17:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I get where everyone is coming from with Rachel possibly not being omega level, however, if we are looking at this from a time stand point in the comics, then Nimrod would have known what omega classification was, since Operation: Zero Tolerance, could have happened in that timeline. I know that it was used 15 years earlier than it had a definition, but this theory could make plausible sense. It does not however explain whether or not Rachel is an omega level mutant or not. I for one believe she is. SEE YA!Drunknesmonsta (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of you are looking at this from a comic timeline/continuity perspective, which ignores the real world view. The current' definition of "Omega-Level mutant" came about in the X-Men: Forever mini-series. Rachel Summer was called an Omega many years before this came about. It doesn't make much sense to assume that the writer of the Nimrod incident, a one-off occurrence, incidentally, is using the same definition as way institutionalize many years later. Terms change over time. The easiest example I can think of is "gay" previously meaning "happy," but now meaning "homosexual." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.65.116 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with most of that, but I still think it is important to note, for that very reason. Stating that she was classified as Omega before the term came into general use is better than saying nothing at all. If you think it needs expanding on the article, do so, but don't reduce content that's valid.Dorin (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Rachel's 198 Files entry, it describes her abilities as "virtually unlimited telepathic and telekinetic powers". Isn't unlimited potential in fact the defining characteristic of Omega Class mutants? Wouldn't that entry actually support Rachel's debatable classification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.11.57 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Birth of Rachel Summers in 616

I remember reading the Dark Phoenix Saga, and in one of the issues, Jean and Cyclops were sitting on a plateau in the southwest when Jean formed the psychic rapport that they share. I remember them kissing and then the scene changed. I thought, that I read somewhere that this was when Rachel may have been conceived. I can't remember if it was really touched on or not, but it is something that has been bugging me. However, with the reveleation during the Days of Future Present crossover when Rachel could not locate Scott lead to some speculation that she may not be Scott's daughter. I've read she may be Wolverine's kid or possibly a creation of Jean's Phoenix Powers. I do know that in the Days of Future Past timeline that Jean evolved into Phoenix, which was originally supposed to happen here, but due to editorial BS it didnt. If anyone has any input on an issue where I could find this let me know. Thanks people.Drunknesmonsta (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has ever been officially stated other than Rachel being a "future" child of Jean and Scott's. As she is from an alternate timeline it is quite possible that she will never officially be born into the Earth 616 reality. Jean did tell her sometime around her marriage to Scott that she was hoping to become pregnate with Rachel, which made Rachel very happy. Of course she died before this could happen. Artemisboy (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Her brief time in the White Hot Room depicted that she had a limited number of incarnations, meaning that her existence is predicated on a limited number of possibilities. In Uncanny X-Men: The Cruelest Cut, she also mentioned that her existence was an enigma and that even if she shouldn't exist int he 616 (since she's clearly supposed to be the first child of "Jean" and Cyclops).

What you both say is true, but I'm very curious about her true parentage, whether it is really Jean and Scott, or the other theories such as Wolverine and Jean and just a creation of the Phoenix force. Looking back at the Days of Future Present crossover it seems very possible that Scott is not her biological father. But, until they do a little more in depth view of Earth-811 all people can do is speculate. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pyrokinesis?

Does Rachel also possess pyrokinesis? I know poster Luminum doesn't seem to think so but in the first Excalibur story she is shown talking to her fellow teammates about King Arthur and causes a small fire to become a huge blazing inferno taking the shape of both King Arthur himself and the sword Excalibur. I'm sure there are other examples but does this count? Artemisboy (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a context to your question. Your initial topic appeared completely apropos to nothing. Without having read this issue, I would suspect that her powers are what they have always been described as--telepathy, telekinesis, and chrono-skimming. Like Jean Grey (or the Stepford Cuckoos) it was probably just use of her telekinesis to stimulate the reaction. Jean just moves molecules around until they combust. Since nothing's ever come of it otherwise, I would guess that it's only intended to be her TK.

Likewise, pyrokinesis as a superpower would probably be something that the writers would need to state outright. Clearly she hasn't used it in any large enough capacity if it was ever intended to be legitimate pyrokinesis like Match, Pyro, or Fire. Again, I assume any fires she exhibits are going to be portrayed as a result of her TK, not some inherent fire-based ability. If you can find more examples, that would probably be the best way to decide.Luminum (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected that the fire use might also be tied to the Phoenix Force as it's presence is signified by fire itself. I never really thought pyrokinesis was part of Rachel's inherant mutant abilities, but when using the Phoenix Force wasn't sure if she was able to tap into this power or not. I'll look to see if I can find any other examples. If not, thanks for the clarity. Artemisboy (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at scans of the issue, it just seems like it's Rachel using her Phoenix powers. While she's talking about Arthur, her voice bubble is drawn differently (jagged and yellow) compared to a normal speech bubble. Then as she concludes it turns back into the Phoenix raptor.Luminum (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So would you say that the Phoenix Force allows her a form of pyrokinesis when tapping into the force, or would you say it is simply an advanced form of TK? Artemisboy (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I never interpreted any "fire" manipulation by any Phoenix host to actually be the same as a pyrokinetic like Magma or Meggan. I always viewed it as a visual depiction to match the aesthetic of a "firebird" phoenix and that it was a visual motif. It seems incredibly literal for a cosmic entity called "the Phoenix" to enhance a mutant's powers and also grant them pyrokinesis. It would be such a literal and, in the scheme of things, pithy extra power. Since it only enhances their actual mutant powers, I would say that Rachel (as with all of them) only have heightened TK/TP. Any "fire", in my opinion, is just a TK-based phenomenon or a writer/artist being more literal for my own personal tastes (see the [{Stepford Cuckoos]] and their literally closed off diamond hearts, yuck). If you look at other hosts, such as Professor Xavier or Storm (in an old What if...?) it's not part of their powers when they bond with it. However, characters like the Cuckoos were actually described as having gained pyrokinesis. In that case, I would add it, but for Rachel, if it wasn't featured explicitly or mention explicitly, I wouldn't take that liberty.Luminum (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Giruad, he was a non-powered human who became a Phoenix host and the Force embued him with a vast array of powers. Artemisboy (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Summers resource

Comics Alliance has a pretty decent article on the history of Rachel Summers [1]. I did some looking around and it looks like Comics Alliance is a pretty reliable source, being referred to be a few standing reliable news sources (Toronto Star, MTV.com, etc.). Since the Fictional Character Biography should be comprised of those events that are covered by reliable sources, this will probably be quite useful and valuable in rewriting the FCB. The summary is concise, but leaves room for fleshing out, especially if we can find some additional reliable sources that go into a bit more detail of things that may have been left out in their summary.Luminum (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Summers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328223320/http://www.rachel-summers.com/ to http://www.rachel-summers.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Main Image

Can she get a new picture, one that isn't from 2008? Cordelia Van Allen (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)