Could you guys post her best feats without the Phoenix Force, please? They'd be much appreciated :)

yes please

@koays: Rachel is such a badass when written correctly

Her best feat is honestly being relevant past 1995.

@cattlebattle: LOL im trying to do something here, leave her alone!

when written at all....

@koays: referring to mesmero. But you’re right. Ever since Claremont’s third Uncanny run I’ve been liking her more and more. She definitely deserves some appearances next year.

@elpendejo: Lol she deserves appearances every year. I'm hoping they give her time in the upcoming X-Force book or do something else interesting with her since shes one of the highest profile X-Men not scheduled to appear in Uncanny.

LOL, you say the funniest things sometimes.

@koays: I’d rather see her with her mother to be honest. Theyve never been on the same team lol

@cattlebattle: Pfft who's higher then her that's not there? Its like Colossus and Emma....then what? Sage? Fantomex? Moonstar? Bah if Bishop can get a spot in a book then Rachel can.

@Elpendejo I want it, but it just doesnt seem necessary. Guest appearances in each other's plots like in Red and gold. Maybe an issue or two...but prolonged idk.

@koays: I guess. I just want them to get enough time together before Jean dies again or Rachel gets stuck in time/space again.

@elpendejo: Been saying for years Scott should just show up with a RV in front of the mansion and through all the kids and Jean in it and go on a Summers family roadtrip.

@koays: Yes, this is what I’ve been saying. Just a comic where the summers family just have some fun and go over how convoluted their history is lol

@elpendejo:

@koays: Dude, Rachel and Nathan going off on Jean and Scott is some of the best shit I’ve ever seen lol. That needs to happen again.

Errr... Angel, Rogue, Gambit, Havok, Polaris etc.

Most people that aren't hardcore X-Men fans don't even know who Rachel is. They see an issue with her in it and they think the artist just drew Jean with short hair accidentally.

@elpendejo:

....Angel is in Uncanny. LEAVE HER ALONE!

I can't help it...

It's a problem I have...

I see something in need of criticism, I can't let it go...

Albeit Rachel was cool in Excalibur in the 90s, she is sort of Jean Grey-lite most of the time.

@koays: true shit though, in some issues I forget he even has powers. Like did he have tk and tp in messiah complex? I swear he didn’t use anything.

@koays: I know I’m gonna get your army on me for saying this, but cattlebattle has a point. Rachel has always been kind of a Jean Grey lite and kind of obscure as far as x men go. Although in my opinion Rachel’s far more badass than Jean.

@cattlebattle: @elpendejo: I think I've argued it before but when I think of characters who are clones or "lite" versions of characters it's hard for me to rope Rachel in there because she doesnt really have much in common with Jean. Their powers and the Phoenix of course, but in terms of personality, motivation and role in the story shes got more in common with Cable and Bishop then she does with Jean. Like if she was blonde instead of a redhead she wouldn't be compared to Jean really at all.

The obscurity thing cant really be helped though, Nightcrawler, Kitty and Rachel were in Excalbiur which aS far as comics go was beyond obscure. I mean even Havok and Polaris got to be in crossovers and events.

@@elpendejo Messiah Complex is post lobotomy so he only had low grade to which is being used for his TO virus.

@koays: Well I think Jean Grey lites are only called that because of the similarities they have to Jean on a surface level. I don’t think of it as an insult though. You’re right about the red head thing though. If cable and Nate grey were red heads, they’d be called the same.

1. I am just being facetious a lot of the time with Rachel. I actually like the character, defend the character whenever someone makes the "hurr durr, she confusing" argument, and advocate for her to be on the team. However, I mainly like the 90s "starchild" version of the character that was essentially one rung below God tier that Claremont wrote. The form and bird avatar she constantly manifested made for some awesome visuals as well. The ultimate problem with that was that she was so powerful you would have to come up with some really sketchy ways for her to be taken out of the battle and it would seem inconsistent. Rachel without the Phoenix stuff is, well, just sort of boring.

2. Koays' "army", haha, that's probably as fear inducing as the Canadian army.

3. The similarities run deeper than hair color. She has the same surname, powerset, familial relations, etc. Rachel was even known for her considerable meanstreak, which is one of the reasons why people used to speculate that Wolverine might be her father, but it turned out that Jean also possesses this trait. Like mother, like daughter after all which ends up with Rachel just being mini Jean.

4. Rachel's history and creation is being a Jean knockoff though unfortunately.So, it's not just me emphasizing that. Claremont really loved Jean, and even more deeply loved the power amp he gave her, that of course being the "Phoenix" moniker and power upgrade. He didn't want her to die at the end of the Dark Phoenix Saga, just depower her, which he would have imaginably found a way to circumvent years later after the story had cooled off. However, John Byrne and editorial had demanded she die, so, he was forced to kill her off, torpedoing his plans for writing Scott out of the series and having a Phoenix to play with. So, being the stubborn bastard that he is, he created Madelyne Pryor (who was originally just supposed to be Scott's wife and nothing more) and Rachel who fulfilled the X-men's resident Phoenix role. One of the reasons he whisked her off the team to be on Excalibur was because Jean Grey came back, and he knew that if he let another writer write Rachel she might be killed off seeing as she was just Jean 2.0 to begin with.

So, she basically seems like a fill in for Jean Grey because she sort of originally was and continued to be in Jean's many absences.

i hope she survives extermination

@cattlebattle: 1. I get it really. Though I honestly just enjoy all aspects of the character. Her being the all powerful Phoenix who fights Galactus, stands up to the Beyond and fights across galaxies with necron is as interesting for me as her being the only survivor of the Grey family massacre or being the former hound with PTSD.

2. Google says my watermelon army beats the average Canadian "soldier" 9 out of 10 times. And gets apologies afterwards 11 out of 10times.

3. Shes got the same powers....but nowadays she also shares that same powerset with Psylocke and Quire. The thing is that she is Jeans daughter so you can't escape that part of the connection, but as far as their characters their very different. Jean has a temper but its hidden behind a empathetic exterior where as Rachel is very much internally focused on her own angst. Even their relationships on teams are very different. I feel like to be a clone you need to be able to fulfill the same role in all aspects. Like if we switched Aquaman on the Justice League with Namor, or Bishop with Cable things would change less then if you switched Rachel and Jean. I mean even in the way they fight Jean is more passive, where as Rachel is for the most part depicted as a Brawler.

4. I get the point, I mean of course as the daughter of a character it means something. It just always bugs me because you have characters like X-Man and Cable and even adult Franklin Richards who she should be more associated with since her story is basically the template for them in so many ways and yet shes never grouped with the Bishops of the world....shes just grouped with Maddie and Hope, the latter.

Idk, shes my favorite character simply because I've had to defend her so much, my bias is on full display

@koays:

1. Whenever I read back through the 80s stuff, I actually care for Rachel's depiction less and less, she seems to complain all the time, albeit with good reason, and she seems overly irrational at times as well. I guess you could make an argument that she is supposed to be a kid, but, then, two panels later she is spouting the moral wisdom of a thirty something year old novelist or something. Her character also seems to shift radically after joining Excalibur and I am often left to wonder if this had something to do with the mini series that was planned for her that was supposed to happen in between the titles or what. Anyways, it's been shown time and time again that Claremont is really the only one who can write her well and anytime after 1996 or so she is just sort of boring, well, to me at least.

2. So....do you just throw watermelons at people??

3. Well, Madelyne Pryor has her own personality and has different relationships with people than Jean does, it doesn't change the fact that she is a knockoff of Jean Grey. I also don't agree with the empathetic exterior for Jean either. Isn't the whole Dark Phoenix thing based around Jean's dark side?? Isn't the whole thing about Jean that is interesting is that she has darkest of dark sides??

I don;t think Bishop and Cable are all that interchangeable, they don't have much in common other than big guns and time travel, whereas Rachel has a multitude in things common with Jean from sharing a connection the Phoenix Force, to calling themselves Marvel Girl, to both being gutted by Wolverine at some point.

4. Yeah, I've always disliked X-Man, and naturally have always disliked the Cable retcon, I understand it's an indelible part of the lore at this point but still.

I always thought someone would do something more with Cable's future and the Clan Askani crap and Rachel should be a part of that in some capacity. It's a bunch of Cyborg people with face tattoos wielding laser guns and psimitars in an unending battle against Apocalypse. All that stuff seems bizarrely untouched over the years for some reason.

@cattlebattle:

1. The depiction does vary pre Exaclibur. I liked to think of it as just lapses though because for the most part hotheaded, angsty but ultimately misguided is what

Is supposed to be her character in the Uncanny issues to me. When shes not it seems almost like she was getting someone else's lines. Claremont being her best writer is really only so blatant because of some of Excaliburs difficulty with tone and direction, otherwise I'd say that even after he left the title she was still always the most consistent and interesting of the cast especially when comparing focus arcs. (Though when Brian Braddock is on your team it's hard not to be more likeable)

2. Were more generally watermelon themed. Watermelon swords, training with watermelon based artillery, breaking watermelons as a sign of strength....so basically just like the Canadian army but with melons instead of maple syrup.

3. Well your right about Jean's darkside especially with how tightly its tied into her shows of power, but her being the most empathetic can even be interpreted as the filter for which she handles her darkside. I mean it's often implied that shes holding back for the sake of others. The U-Men seen in Morrisons run comes to mind and I just got through reading X-Man and when she realizes that Maddie has come back to life she flies off to take her out so that Cyclops and Cable dont have to "suffer".

Lol Rachel held that grudge from being stabbed for like....forever actually. Holding a grudge doesn't even seem that in character for Jean.

Cable and Bishop basically have the same role on teams whenever Cables not running things and their military type minds and justifications for dickish behavior overlaps more closely then Rachel's cool kid with the power of a god persona and Jean's woe is this strength I must learn to control persona

4. Honestly I loved the Askani stuff when Scott and Jean were sent there. And Rachel's flash forward was good to. Cable's solo and early X-Force were all about that stuff and with his solo it really did continue to dig into it for a long time....it just seemed like around the time of "The 12" they wanted to close the book and not discuss Cables future, Scott and Jean going there to raise him, Stryfe, or really anything else in relation to it. Either because apocalyptic futures were too 90s...or because they were just tired of the plot. I mean Cables book basically abandoned any mention of it beyond rescuing Rachel, Apocalypse disappeared...its odd. But I honestly prefer Askani stuff to anything that was hinted at with him before the retcon.

Lol X-Mans entire story just reminds me of a rebellious teenager who waste his parents money for his education until he comes back from a summer abroad telling everyone hes gonna be a shaman now. It's just hes supposed to be a less edgy but more 90s cool guy character but he comes of more dumb and angry then anything. Shrug

@koays:

1. Claremont is the only one that is able to give her character I have always felt. Whether it's X-Men: True Friends, End of Greys, Excalibur, or whatever, Rachel feels like a more likeable person in those stories, and I suppose that's because Claremont created her and is good at writing characters. When Brubaker used her she just felt as if she could have been substituted for several other characters. The recent usage of her is even more laughable.

I also can't stress how much better she is when she has her Phoenix form from the Excalibur days with the glowing eyes, flaming hair, and wings. Alan Davis made some cool panels with her in that form and definitely boosted her attractiveness to someone that might not be familiar with the character. It was foolish to do away with that in my opinion.

2. Hmmm. Interesting. Is there participation in the Banana Wars??

3. Jean has held grudges before, and has been rather violent and has been shown to be rather extreme in some of her actions. The U men is of course, the perfect example, but even before she was retconned to not really be Dark Phoenix she used her power in ways that made her team mates question her actions. That savagery is what was Wolverine was supposed to be attracted to initially if I recall. Rachel also shows a lot of these traits as well is shown to be compassionate and saintly, she is Jean Grey 2.0 after all.

I'm not going to dive into semantics here with all these "what about this?? what about that??" examples, but I think if you asked your general X-Men fan "who has more in common, Rachel and Jean or Bishop and Cable" I am pretty sure most would go with the former.

4. Yeah, I guess the Askani stuff is probably more visually interesting than it is in execution. Perhaps it is a relic of the 90s.

As for my issue with X-Man, and this may be a bit long winded here, so, bare with me...

It goes back to the late 80s where I just think there was a lack of creativity from Simonson when giving young Nate powers. She knew the baby had to have powerful abilities so she just gave him TK and that was that, so subsequently Cable got retconned into being that character with those abilities which led to X-Man. Basically, I dislike that every child of Jean and Scott from different futures whether they are the actual child of Jean or a clone just has Jean's powers. It sort of cheapens Scott being the father. I mean logically Beast, Warren or WOlverine could have been Rachel or Nate's father and it would not have made much of a difference seeing as the child just has Jean's powerset and nothing much else in terms of Cyclops DNA. It also basically plot holes Mr Sinister into oblivion as well seeing as the "powerful mutant" he supposedly wanted to create he already had with Jean's DNA as well as the fact he could have just went after Rachel and cloned or manipulate her. Scott really isn't all that needed in any of these processes. He is just included most of the time because he is famously Jean Grey's lover. Claremont even stated at some point he intended for Rachel to just be born of Jean and the Phoenix Force, which means Cyclops would have been cosmically cucked.

What they of should have done was given Nate/Cable Vulcan's powerset. That way it would make sense that a kid has the energy absorption powers of his father but they are boosted tenfold because of his mother's potential for mutant godhood. That would have made a bit more sense.

Basically, to sum it all up, I find X-Man to be nothing new or interesting seeing as his mother and half/interdimensional sister has his same powerset and are way more interesting because of it, he, and Cable, are the product of shitty retcons and lack of creativity, and I just can't help but be reminded of the cartoonish drawing style of the series from the 90s with his garish, really blue costume, and Jeph Loeb's shitty writing whenever I think of the character.

@cattlebattle: Your right about Claremont of course. I'd argue Excalibur maintained his quality in the character...but it's clear alot of that is because even 50 plus issues in Rachel is still revisiting scenes from his time with the character for her personal plot moments. That said I did like Guggenheim...despite being boring and pale hes a clear fan of Rachel....though him being a huge students of Claremonts work should be noted.

2. Nah. Were really good at fruit ninja though.

3. Fair enough. It's hard to avoid the comparison. It's just that for as much as I enjoy and like Jean's character, I like Rachel's much more and it has next to nothing to do with the things that are similar to Jean. She's a spin offspring, so it's like yea shes supposed to remind you of Jean, but everything about Rachel being from DofP, being mentored by a grownup Kitty and being used to kill known characters like Nightcrawler. That's a part of her that's more interesting and more in line with the other time travel characters then with who her parents are to me. It's like shes more the child of the X-Mens lure then she is of Jean when it comes to that part of the character...but yea I concede the point.

4. An interesting thing I always thought about the Grey-Summers kids was that they were all instantly more powerful then Jean. In both the Phoenix saga and Morrsions run its painted as a big deal that Jean can move molecules around and redress herself with the Phoenix. Meanwhile Rachel, Nate and even Cable (with Jean's help) have feats of the same without aid. I always thought that if Cyclops or Sinister got a solo it would be revealed that something about the Summers family and their energy absorption/manipulation was what made every mutant Jean and Scott spit out a instant cosmic threat. It couldve even been interesting to see that Sinister had similar interest in Havok and Polaris and a potential Magneto connection down the line.

With X-Man it's hard to defend since after I got through his solo I felt like he reminded me of Superboy Prime or Rachel when she first got to earth for a more pointed example. His personality kinda grates me since the writer is trying so hard to justify him not being with the other X-characters instead of just accepting that we dont care.

If I had to say one thing in defense of him, it's that I'm pretty sure he just wasn't supposed to be as popular as he was during age of Apocalypse and it really through them off. I think writers just enjoyed having a version of Cable who they could give the super powerful savior of mutant kind unstoppable abilities even though I'm dying background that Cable got retconned into having, without having to justify it against the fact that Cables core character has always been more grounded in being the tactical military commander who runs black ops missions against corporate threats.

Problem is that by removing the parts that didn't work, they made a dumbass.

@koays: 4. That’s kinda why Phoenix saga Jean ,with the exception of the crystal and dark Phoenix, seemed overall unimpressive to me since many of the feats she did were replicated and even surpassed by her and her children later on. Especially the ones that impressed Scott; Jean changing her clothes, Jean crushing and fixing a car, Jean almost beating Magneto etc. The powerscaling really downplays past Phoenix feats.

@koays:

1. Excalibur really is her best, well, everything. From personality traits to cosmic feats. Even Alan Davis wrote her better. Everything since then is just basically admitting "well, at least it's not absolutely terrible, so, I guess it's pretty good".

2.----

3. Yeah, I am basically saying here that even though someone like X-23 is nearly a completely different character than Wolverine she still has the same powers, and basically fulfills the same role that Wolverine would on a team, sort of rendering her redundant for a main role that Wolverine would have. I feel this the same case with Rachel and Jean.

4. I think Nate Grey was just naturally supposed to have powers on par with Phoenix Force or something, whereas Rachel and her mum had to develop power over time or have it brought out of them. I don't know, it's all super confusing and doesn't do much of anything for any character but cheapens them a bit. I am just not a fan of all these Jean/Scott progeny just having TK/TP. Doesn't all this also fly in the face of the X-Men's franchise supposed "girl power" as well?? Like, this man can wield near god powers more fluently and with way more ease than these dumb wamenz!!

I never thought about it before but now that you say it I have no doubt that X-Man was influenced by Superboy. Superboy was popular at the time of his creation (1993) and Nate was created two years later. Superboy also originally had "tactile telekinesis" which is not too different from the functionality of Nate's powers and the original design of Superboy was similar with his jacket and straps. Even their personalities are similar. Wow, thanks man, now I like him even less for being a derivative rip off of a popular 90s DC character.

If they ever do a reboot, which I imagine will happen in our lifetimes, I do hope they keep the original intended versions for some characters as they will have foresight. If you go back and read New Mutants when Cable first shows up he is this mysterious mercenary with cybernetic implants and unknown motives. It is clearly way more interesting than what he wound up being.