What To Do With a Problem Like Rachel

[Tank]

Once Jean was featured in TAS and Rachel wasn’t, it secured her place as a bigger character. Revisits to the Phoenix storyline in films and cartoons made it tied to Jean in ways it isn’t to anyone else and ultimately the comics were forced to respond. Rachel has nothing going on for her and the only reason she got this far was faded 80s Nostalgia.

You could argue the only reason she’s mentioned at all is because she is Scott and Jean’s daughter. If she was just some random character with no relation to them, i doubt she would have been mentioned again after DOFP. Especially since her role was replaceable there as well. See Kitty in the Days of Future Past movies.

[CuteClops]

The fact that the X-Office isn't capitalizing on their own "Heroes in Crisis" (minus the needless death and ableism) by having Doc Samson and Danger start up therapy sessions for some of the teachers and students is beyond me. The way characters like Rachel, Hellion, Magik, Cyclops, Anole, and others are often vilified for their PTSD instead of actually being able to get resources that might help them is just another blunder with the X-Office.

Well stated. I appreciate the clarity of the challenge you express.

But they are profiting. To call this the X-Office's insensitivity and/or 'another blunder' as in any way unconscious or unitentional is to forgive X-Office's immoral industry of exploitation. It has become a hallmark of X-Books to appropriate and corportize the pain of others as property and commodity.

Today's X-books glamorize suffering, they frequently use torture as entrainment and conceal this by calling up cannon as evidence and reason. When neither is true by necessity or intent. Even their modes hardly veil the consistent cliches of this method: suicidal tendencies, rough diamonds, adolescent distress, keep-it-a-secret specialness, orphaned exiles, closed circuit character spirals, rat mazes, fridges, Phoenix ashes, crucifixions and resurrections.

Sardorim, thank you for giving focus and voice to this issue and important topic by speaking clearly and specifically about Rachel. IMO, what is most damning and sickening about this abuse by the modern day X-Office is the harm it causes real life individuals who in any way may incorporate these stigmas and stereotyped displays as the limits and controls of their own private emotions, pain and self narratives.

Thank you guys for these important points of view.

[U.N. Owen]

Once Jean was featured in TAS and Rachel wasn’t, it secured her place as a bigger character. Revisits to the Phoenix storyline in films and cartoons made it tied to Jean in ways it isn’t to anyone else and ultimately the comics were forced to respond. Rachel has nothing going on for her and the only reason she got this far was faded 80s Nostalgia.

In Jean's defense, Rachel and Stryfe had a cameo in "Beyond Good and Evil."

[Triniking1234]

In Jean's defense, Rachel and Stryfe had a cameo in "Beyond Good and Evil."

How does that defend Jean?

[lurkerforyears]

send Rachel to space, make her a cosmic hero, that was her best version this millenium
she is also the only character that the Phoenix improves instead of making her worse

[Disciple of Redd]

I'm pretty much anti legacy characters. The concept is one of the hallmarks of what I call "cynical laziness".

Someone thinks "this character design sells so let's reuse it to make a 'new' character".

Were it up to me, she would go back to her time, along with any other duplicates or babies from the future. Short of that, I would have her take on a repurposed Hound identity, but as a hero.

[Tank]

I'm pretty much anti legacy characters. The concept is one of the hallmarks of what I call "cynical laziness".

Someone thinks "this character design sells so let's reuse it to make a 'new' character".

Were it up to me, she would go back to her time, along with any other duplicates or babies from the future. Short of that, I would have her take on a repurposed Hound identity, but as a hero.

+100, they are the worse type of characters because they are not original.

[TheDeadSpace]

I'm pretty much anti legacy characters. The concept is one of the hallmarks of what I call "cynical laziness".

Someone thinks "this character design sells so let's reuse it to make a 'new' character".

Were it up to me, she would go back to her time, along with any other duplicates or babies from the future. Short of that, I would have her take on a repurposed Hound identity, but as a hero.

Rachel now holds quite a bit of significance when it comes to the X-men. As far as being a legacy character, she's Jean's "daughter" so I don't see how she counts. I think the problem arises from repeatedly having her try to follow Jean's footsteps. I think she needs to be put in a more significant role. Maybe she can mentor kid Cable somewhere down the line and joins X-force.

[CuteClops]

Well, maybe after all this, Rachel goes back to using the name Summers. :/

[Disciple of Redd]

Rachel now holds quite a bit of significance when it comes to the X-men. As far as being a legacy character, she's Jean's "daughter" so I don't see how she counts. I think she needs to be put in a more significant role. Maybe she can mentor kid Cable somewhere down the line and joins X-force.

Huh? She's the definition of a legacy character.

[TheDeadSpace]

Well, maybe after all this, Rachel goes back to using the name Summers. :/

I could see a writer doing this considering the circumstances.

[Tank]

You can be a son/daughter and still be quite derivative. Cable, Kymera, Ruby various children etc at least have their own thing and look.

[Snoop Dogg]

+100, they are the worse type of characters because they are not original.

The Marvel Universe was started by a superior Challengers of the Unknown rehash.

[TheDeadSpace]

Huh? She's the definition of a legacy character.

Apart from the same powers, she isn't always referred to as Marvel girl or phoenix. So, while at times she was a legacy character to replace Jean, she has moments in which she has been her own thing. So, in respect to her history, she's very much her own thing now.

[Havok83]

Apart from the same powers, she isn't always referred to as Marvel girl or phoenix. So, while at times she was a legacy character to replace Jean, she has moments in which she has been her own thing. So, in respect to her history, she's very much her own thing now.

Rachel is a legacy character. Not long after coming to this timeline, she took up Jean's old mantle as Phoenix (which she had for years). She did so again years later when Claremont had her pick up the Marvel Girl mantle in Jean's death. She's even used the same exact costumes or variation of Jeans. Rachel relinquished both of these when Marvel was prepping for Jean to start going by them again (mid 90s and teen Jean arrival). Prestige is about the most original attempt thats been done to give her her own identity since then

And you dont always have to be referred to by a codename to be considered a legacy. Most legacy characters arent always referred to by the original's codename and some never have. See X-23, Ironheart, Carol Danvers for example