is there a possibility that the 05 jean and scott be rachel's parents? i mean could she be conceived in this timeline?

thats a good question!!!!!!

Just because they've traveled into the future doesn't mean that they could suddenly conceive a child who was born in a completely different timeline.

Remember, these two are still the Cyclops and Jean from the 616 - not some other versions from a different reality.

@CTG said:

Remember, these two are still the Cyclops and Jean from the 616 - not some other versions from a different reality.

For now anyway. The only way the time travelling O5 can still be the same 616 O5 is by wiping their memories before going back to their time. Perhaps it might even be Jean herself who does this.

Question:

Do Jean and Scott consider Rachel their daughter-- or not really?

Because Hope is kinda implied to be Cyclops' granddaughter.

@poisonfleur: 616 Jean & Scott did.

BTW I'd like to see O5 Scott & Jean concieve Rachel. It would be good for Rachel, and her parents.

@CTG said:

Just because they've traveled into the future doesn't mean that they could suddenly conceive a child who was born in a completely different timeline.

Remember, these two are still the Cyclops and Jean from the 616 - not some other versions from a different reality.

actually, they aren't the 616 Cyclops and Jean; they are from an alternate reality.

I feel like I've explained this several times in the last few months, but I'll do it again here. If anyone's read the X-men #8, they'll notice that the Beast's rant to Cyclops is a different rant from the one that young Beast delivers to young Cyclops in All-new X-men #1; the scene that takes place in the original series is what happened between the 616 characters, therefore, the fact that it is different at all prior to our 616 Beast arriving in their time is proof that it must be a different, alternate version of the characters. There's no other reasonable explanation for why that dialogue would be different.

The good news about this is that there's no reason to worry about what happens to these characters in regards to their 616 counterparts.

@dangallant984: Using a small change in dialogue to make a solid case that they're different is reaching a bit much. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at this point it's a huge stretch and I'd ask you to do the same as I asked someone else - stop passing off (what is currently) a longshot theory as fact.

I really like this forum, but way too many people jump to a conclusion based (most of the time) on weak evidence and start spreading misinformation.

@CTG said:

@dangallant984: Using a small change in dialogue to make a solid case that they're different is reaching a bit much. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at this point it's a huge stretch and I'd ask you to do the same as I asked someone else - stop passing off (what is currently) a longshot theory as fact.

I really like this forum, but way too many people jump to a conclusion based (most of the time) on weak evidence and start spreading misinformation.

That's not what I'm doing. The events in the X-men #8 are the 616 version of the events; for them to deviate from that at all implies, by definition, that this is an alternate version of those events. It's not a stretch at all.

I'm almost certain that Rachel Grey is from the Days of Future Past timeline which branched off long ago.

@dangallant984 said:

@CTG said:

Just because they've traveled into the future doesn't mean that they could suddenly conceive a child who was born in a completely different timeline.

Remember, these two are still the Cyclops and Jean from the 616 - not some other versions from a different reality.

actually, they aren't the 616 Cyclops and Jean; they are from an alternate reality.

I feel like I've explained this several times in the last few months, but I'll do it again here. If anyone's read the X-men #8, they'll notice that the Beast's rant to Cyclops is a different rant from the one that young Beast delivers to young Cyclops in All-new X-men #1; the scene that takes place in the original series is what happened between the 616 characters, therefore, the fact that it is different at all prior to our 616 Beast arriving in their time is proof that it must be a different, alternate version of the characters. There's no other reasonable explanation for why that dialogue would be different.

The good news about this is that there's no reason to worry about what happens to these characters in regards to their 616 counterparts.

I disagree to a certain extent. I think the differing dialogue with O5 Hank and Current Hank was just Bendis taking some liberties in phrasing it his way. But I do agree that it is possible that it wasn't the 616 timeline.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that although they could have been an alternate reality there is not enough evidence to completely say that this is a different reality altogether. Way I see it it's like a tree. Time is the tree, the branches of the tree represent the differing choices that create the differing realities. Now what I'm saying is that Beast could have very well gone back to the 616 past but by taking the O5 he creates a new branch of reality one where he takes them to the future and one where he does not. So yes no matter what happens to the O5 it should not affect their present selves because by the time they go back they'll be taking a completely different path. In short what I'm saying is that it is more likely what the whole situation would lead to an alternate reality in the end.

What I'm not saying that it is/isn't the 616 timeline/alternate past, based on what little info we have on exactly what was in that specific timeline and the how we as separate users perceive the stream of reality and time in these comics I can't completely deny the possibility that it's not the 616 past and I will not claim that it is either since if I go back to my main concept of how I perceive time and reality here it could be a reality where some guy named Mark in Chicago ordered a Turkey sandwich instead of Ham as the only difference.

@JohnnyGat said:

@dangallant984 said:

@CTG said:

Just because they've traveled into the future doesn't mean that they could suddenly conceive a child who was born in a completely different timeline.

Remember, these two are still the Cyclops and Jean from the 616 - not some other versions from a different reality.

actually, they aren't the 616 Cyclops and Jean; they are from an alternate reality.

I feel like I've explained this several times in the last few months, but I'll do it again here. If anyone's read the X-men #8, they'll notice that the Beast's rant to Cyclops is a different rant from the one that young Beast delivers to young Cyclops in All-new X-men #1; the scene that takes place in the original series is what happened between the 616 characters, therefore, the fact that it is different at all prior to our 616 Beast arriving in their time is proof that it must be a different, alternate version of the characters. There's no other reasonable explanation for why that dialogue would be different.

The good news about this is that there's no reason to worry about what happens to these characters in regards to their 616 counterparts.

I disagree to a certain extent. I think the differing dialogue with O5 Hank and Current Hank was just Bendis taking some liberties in phrasing it his way. But I do agree that it is possible that it wasn't the 616 timeline.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that although they could have been an alternate reality there is not enough evidence to completely say that this is a different reality altogether. Way I see it it's like a tree. Time is the tree, the branches of the tree represent the differing choices that create the differing realities. Now what I'm saying is that Beast could have very well gone back to the 616 past but by taking the O5 he creates a new branch of reality one where he takes them to the future and one where he does not. So yes no matter what happens to the O5 it should not affect their present selves because by the time they go back they'll be taking a completely different path. In short what I'm saying is that it is more likely what the whole situation would lead to an alternate reality in the end.

What I'm not saying that it is/isn't the 616 timeline/alternate past, based on what little info we have on exactly what was in that specific timeline and the how we as separate users perceive the stream of reality and time in these comics I can't completely deny the possibility that it's not the 616 past and I will not claim that it is either since if I go back to my main concept of how I perceive time and reality here it could be a reality where some guy named Mark in Chicago ordered a Turkey sandwich instead of Ham as the only difference.

Finally - someone else gets it.

And explained it much better than I - so thank you.

@JohnnyGat said: .

I disagree to a certain extent. I think the differing dialogue with O5 Hank and Current Hank was just Bendis taking some liberties in phrasing it his way. But I do agree that it is possible that it wasn't the 616 timeline.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that although they could have been an alternate reality there is not enough evidence to completely say that this is a different reality altogether. Way I see it it's like a tree. Time is the tree, the branches of the tree represent the differing choices that create the differing realities. Now what I'm saying is that Beast could have very well gone back to the 616 past but by taking the O5 he creates a new branch of reality one where he takes them to the future and one where he does not. So yes no matter what happens to the O5 it should not affect their present selves because by the time they go back they'll be taking a completely different path. In short what I'm saying is that it is more likely what the whole situation would lead to an alternate reality in the end.

This is a great analogy, even besides the fact that it proves my point.

You could be right that Bendis didn't intend to create an alternate version of the O5, but by altering the dialogue from the Beast's rant to Cyclops before they had encountered our 616 Beast, that's actually what he has done. And maybe the different phrasing of that speech was the only difference between their world and the 616, but it was still an alternate version of the past that had already happened in the X-men #8, whether Bendis ends up acknowledging that or not.

Keep in mind, this isn't an arbitrary thing like when Rogue remembers joining the X-men in Uncanny Avengers #2; the dialogue in that scene is different from the scene that it references in UXM #171, but we can chalk that up to it being Rogue's memory of those events, emphasizing what she personally took away from the experience, and subject to her perception. All-new X-men #1 isn't doing that: it's showing us an actual moment that is actually different from the 616 version of history.

... Gallant, the only way it is an alternate is if Bendis or editorial staff says it is. Even if he didn't intend to change dialogue, there is no Automatic canon split unless they say there was. I know, we fans like to say how things should be and would be, but at the end of the day, we're not the decision makers.

@DarkxSeraph said:

... Gallant, the only way it is an alternate is if Bendis or editorial staff says it is. Even if he didn't intend to change dialogue, there is no Automatic canon split unless they say there was. I know, we fans like to say how things should be and would be, but at the end of the day, we're not the decision makers.

I'm not saying how it should or would be, the books I'm citing already exist.

Unless all of All-new X-men is meant to be non-canon, Bendis already made that decision by changing the dialogue; it's not as if he wouldn't have had access to the original, so he obviously made some kind of conscious decision to change it.

Writers have meesed up continuity all the time. So far Bendis has said explicitly that these ARE the 616 versions. So, until he says otherwise or it is stated, they are the 616. *shrug*

@dangallant984 said:

@JohnnyGat said: .

I disagree to a certain extent. I think the differing dialogue with O5 Hank and Current Hank was just Bendis taking some liberties in phrasing it his way. But I do agree that it is possible that it wasn't the 616 timeline.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that although they could have been an alternate reality there is not enough evidence to completely say that this is a different reality altogether. Way I see it it's like a tree. Time is the tree, the branches of the tree represent the differing choices that create the differing realities. Now what I'm saying is that Beast could have very well gone back to the 616 past but by taking the O5 he creates a new branch of reality one where he takes them to the future and one where he does not. So yes no matter what happens to the O5 it should not affect their present selves because by the time they go back they'll be taking a completely different path. In short what I'm saying is that it is more likely what the whole situation would lead to an alternate reality in the end.

This is a great analogy, even besides the fact that it proves my point.

You could be right that Bendis didn't intend to create an alternate version of the O5, but by altering the dialogue from the Beast's rant to Cyclops before they had encountered our 616 Beast, that's actually what he has done. And maybe the different phrasing of that speech was the only difference between their world and the 616, but it was still an alternate version of the past that had already happened in the X-men #8, whether Bendis ends up acknowledging that or not.

Keep in mind, this isn't an arbitrary thing like when Rogue remembers joining the X-men in Uncanny Avengers #2; the dialogue in that scene is different from the scene that it references in UXM #171, but we can chalk that up to it being Rogue's memory of those events, emphasizing what she personally took away from the experience, and subject to her perception. All-new X-men #1 isn't doing that: it's showing us an actual moment that is actually different from the 616 version of history.

Not necessarily. By agreeing to your justifications it puts me in the position of claiming to know something we do not have enough evidence of. As much as my views on time and reality say in the end it still depends on the writer to which we have no way of truly knowing what's going through his mind. We can all make justifications why one is an alternate reality but if the intent of the writer is that it is from the main timeline just like your point on whether the change in dialogue was acknowledge or not it all boils down on the writers intent overall. What if Bendis just reread the earlier issue and rewrote most of the dialogue based on memory. Some words change but the intent of it being from the main timeline is there. Unless there is a very noticeable change (different attitude, visual cues, as opposed to wording) that clearly distinguishes one reality from another the only means of judging whether or not it truly is a different reality is placed in the head of whoever wrote the idea.

@DarkxSeraph basically points it out fairly enough.

@dangallant984 said:

@DarkxSeraph said:

... Gallant, the only way it is an alternate is if Bendis or editorial staff says it is. Even if he didn't intend to change dialogue, there is no Automatic canon split unless they say there was. I know, we fans like to say how things should be and would be, but at the end of the day, we're not the decision makers.

I'm not saying how it should or would be, the books I'm citing already exist.

Unless all of All-new X-men is meant to be non-canon, Bendis already made that decision by changing the dialogue; it's not as if he wouldn't have had access to the original, so he obviously made some kind of conscious decision to change it.

That may be true - he may have made a conscious decision to change the dialogue, but do you have proof of why? No, you don't. So until otherwise, stop presenting a theory as fact.

Talking theory is one thing. Or, 'in my opinion,' or 'I think,' but stating definite fact with no definitive proof is folly in comicbooks.

@JohnnyGat: @CTG: @DarkxSeraph:

haha! okay, look, guys, all I've done is point out what has actually been printed in actual comics; that much, as far as the story goes, is facts. If Bendis wants to back-peddle with some other explanation as to how these characters are actually the 616 versions later in the story, I will totally accept that. But until he does, he's only given me reason to believe that they are not, based on what's happened in the story.

If you guys disagree, well I guess I can't help that, but not one of you has based your arguments on what has actually happened in the story, and that would be the only way to compel me to believe that I have been in error on this subject.

I do hope there's no hard feelings.

You want something in the book? Sure. Beast. Hank would not be so concerned about bringing the past characters into the present if they were an alternate timeline. He was concerned and held the gravity of the situation he did because bringing HIS past self to the present can destabilize the timeline and lead to huge problems.

Not if he brought an alternate reality version over. But his personal, 616 self.

@dangallant984 said:

@CTG said:

Just because they've traveled into the future doesn't mean that they could suddenly conceive a child who was born in a completely different timeline.

Remember, these two are still the Cyclops and Jean from the 616 - not some other versions from a different reality.

actually, they aren't the 616 Cyclops and Jean; they are from an alternate reality.

I feel like I've explained this several times in the last few months, but I'll do it again here. If anyone's read the X-men #8, they'll notice that the Beast's rant to Cyclops is a different rant from the one that young Beast delivers to young Cyclops in All-new X-men #1; the scene that takes place in the original series is what happened between the 616 characters, therefore, the fact that it is different at all prior to our 616 Beast arriving in their time is proof that it must be a different, alternate version of the characters. There's no other reasonable explanation for why that dialogue would be different.

The good news about this is that there's no reason to worry about what happens to these characters in regards to their 616 counterparts.

Lol, no, the true reason is either that Bendis thought he could write better dialogue, or that he thought it needed modernizing. I believe it would have been stated by Beast that they're from another dimension after being questioned by the teachers about the integrity of the timeline upon bringing them to the present.

@DarkxSeraph said:

You want something in the book? Sure. Beast. Hank would not be so concerned about bringing the past characters into the present if they were an alternate timeline. He was concerned and held the gravity of the situation he did because bringing HIS past self to the present can destabilize the timeline and lead to huge problems.

Not if he brought an alternate reality version over. But his personal, 616 self.

Unless Beast doesn't realize that it was an alternate timeline, which seems to be the case. Just because all of the characters think something, doesn't make it so. Remember when they thought the Dark Phoenix was Jean? haha! she was just sleepin'! Xavier's dead again? -just kiddin!

@TimeLordScience said:

Lol, no, the true reason is either that Bendis thought he could write better dialogue, or that he thought it needed modernizing. I believe it would have been stated by Beast that they're from another dimension after being questioned by the teachers about the integrity of the timeline upon bringing them to the present.

unless the Beast didn't realize that that's what he had done, which seems to be the case.

And this argument is still meta and not based on the occurrences from the actual text; sorry, TimeLord, you're science, in this case, is flawed.

@dangallant984 said:

@JohnnyGat: @CTG: @DarkxSeraph:

haha! okay, look, guys, all I've done is point out what has actually been printed in actual comics; that much, as far as the story goes, is facts. If Bendis wants to back-peddle with some other explanation as to how these characters are actually the 616 versions later in the story, I will totally accept that. But until he does, he's only given me reason to believe that they are not, based on what's happened in the story.

If you guys disagree, well I guess I can't help that, but not one of you has based your arguments on what has actually happened in the story, and that would be the only way to compel me to believe that I have been in error on this subject.

I do hope there's no hard feelings.

My problem isn't in regards to your views on the situation, the thing is you present your point in way that it comes off as if it's fact (I'm not saying that was your intent rather that's how it came off). It's as if you're not taking into account the possibility that Bendis just possibly just wanted to rephrase the conversation. My main point of argument is that human error where a person aims to fix what isn't broken is and can be an explainable reason as to why the dialogue changed and that these O5 who look and act like their present counterparts as young kids when they first were shown could possibly be from the main 616 timeline branch. I never mentioned that your theory is wrong or that I completely disagree with it but I do wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that we as mere viewers of someone else's story can say what is and what isn't on a characters mind definitively because in the end that is the one source we cannot openly view from.

@JohnnyGat said:

My problem isn't in regards to your views on the situation, the thing is you present your point in way that it comes off as if it's fact (I'm not saying that was your intent rather that's how it came off). It's as if you're not taking into account the possibility that Bendis just possibly just wanted to rephrase the conversation. My main point of argument is that human error where a person aims to fix what isn't broken is and can be an explainable reason as to why the dialogue changed and that these O5 who look and act like their present counterparts as young kids when they first were shown could possibly be from the main 616 timeline branch. I never mentioned that your theory is wrong or that I completely disagree with it but I do wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that we as mere viewers of someone else's story can say what is and what isn't on a characters mind definitively because in the end that is the one source we cannot openly view from.

I'm just saying that by rephrasing the conversation he created an alternate version of it, and by definition, that is true.

I don't mean to sound smug, nor do I have any idea what Bendis' plans for these characters are, but, by definition, he created an alternate version of established continuity. That's all I'm saying.

@dangallant984 said:

@JohnnyGat said:

My problem isn't in regards to your views on the situation, the thing is you present your point in way that it comes off as if it's fact (I'm not saying that was your intent rather that's how it came off). It's as if you're not taking into account the possibility that Bendis just possibly just wanted to rephrase the conversation. My main point of argument is that human error where a person aims to fix what isn't broken is and can be an explainable reason as to why the dialogue changed and that these O5 who look and act like their present counterparts as young kids when they first were shown could possibly be from the main 616 timeline branch. I never mentioned that your theory is wrong or that I completely disagree with it but I do wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that we as mere viewers of someone else's story can say what is and what isn't on a characters mind definitively because in the end that is the one source we cannot openly view from.

I'm just saying that by rephrasing the conversation he created an alternate version of it, and by definition, that is true.

I don't mean to sound smug, nor do I have any idea what Bendis' plans for these characters are, but, by definition, he created an alternate version of established continuity. That's all I'm saying.

And all I'm saying is that human error is still attributable and that in the end whether or not it was an alternate timeline or if it was just the same timeline messed up with unnecessary changes that although by definition he did create one, by intent it could really go either way. And in the end in terms of story the intent of the writer overrides the logic of situations that's why we get PIS moments. The logic of definition, of character consistency, and of logical assumptions have constantly been ignored in favor of progressing a story and this has that high chance of being the case.

@dangallant984 said:

@DarkxSeraph said:

You want something in the book? Sure. Beast. Hank would not be so concerned about bringing the past characters into the present if they were an alternate timeline. He was concerned and held the gravity of the situation he did because bringing HIS past self to the present can destabilize the timeline and lead to huge problems.

Not if he brought an alternate reality version over. But his personal, 616 self.

Unless Beast doesn't realize that it was an alternate timeline, which seems to be the case. Just because all of the characters think something, doesn't make it so. Remember when they thought the Dark Phoenix was Jean? haha! she was just sleepin'! Xavier's dead again? -just kiddin!

@TimeLordScience said:

Lol, no, the true reason is either that Bendis thought he could write better dialogue, or that he thought it needed modernizing. I believe it would have been stated by Beast that they're from another dimension after being questioned by the teachers about the integrity of the timeline upon bringing them to the present.

unless the Beast didn't realize that that's what he had done, which seems to be the case.

And this argument is still meta and not based on the occurrences from the actual text; sorry, TimeLord, you're science, in this case, is flawed.

You're really grasping at straws there.

So what if it is?

Why is Barry Allen the Flash again and not Wally? Because Geoff Johns resurrected him.

Why did Geoff Johns resurrect him? Because he grew up loving that character.

A meta reason for an occurrence in comics. Looks like you're going to have to deal with the fact that they exist.

And a Time Lord's science is never flawed ;)

Because the doctor is so very clever.