Talk:X-Men: Messiah Complex

Comics: Marvel C‑class Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X-Men: Messiah Complex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

potential error?

Wolverine doesn't trust Warpath will be willing to kill Cable should the need arise, and he asks Feral to keep an eye on him =- isn't Feral dead? She certainly isn't mentioned earlier. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, i think he said Wolfsbane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.104.194 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries

The summaries here need major work; what I'd like to do first is shorten them to be at most 2 paragraphs long - no need for all the minutia and page-by-page script summaries. At the conclusion of the cross-over, I think the article should be rewritten to incorporate all the summaries into a more coherent synopsis without the individual issue headers. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this, but otherwise I'll go ahead with the individual chapter summary re-writes, then work on the consolidation after next week. Magaroja (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you propose rewriting the whole thing at the conclusion, can't you just wait till next week? I mean, it seems pointless to do all the work you're proposing now only to have it undone in a week. I'm not saying I'm against it, just saying we've only got a week till the conclusion anyway.DNMN (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some minutia that isn't necessary. I like the chapter summaries. Anonymous Reader.

I like the chapter summaries too, mainly because if you're looking to find a specific event that took place, you can easily just look here and locate exactly which issue it happened in. I wish all summaries were done in this style. Sorry I can't sign this but I'm not registered.

I agree that there is some minutia that can be taken out of the chapter / issue summeries, however I think that keeping the issue numbers in a sub-headings would be a good idea. I believe it would be very posible to write a shorter and more coherent summery while still including the name of the book that the information came from and its issue number. Neilgorman (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.58.40 (talk) [reply]

Chapter 13

As I see it, there have been two summaries written for Chapter 13, neither of which are up to Wikipedia standards (one is simply sub-standard, the other is almost vandalism). I am not a fluent Wikipedia writer (nor have I read the issue yet) so I do not believe myself qualified to edit these sections. I have chosen to remove these summaries from the article until someone can write a more standard decription. Thanks. 199.111.188.159 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I agree with you. I've read through several versions and some are not up to code but others are. I would not say lets get a collective decision instead of one person handling it all by themselves.Jason 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

As I said - when I left my original comment, there were only two versions - one which was not up to standard, the other was vandlism (the vandalism was the present version when I first came to the site). Perhaps I should have reverted back to the substandard version instead of clearing the whole section, and then let the collective minds work from there. Either way, the vandalism needed to be removed, and the problem has been corrected. 199.111.188.159 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is why Prof X's body VANISHES in the last frame!208.65.132.20 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby

At the comic book store that I go to, the owner said that the baby is suppose to be Jean Grey reborn. Is this anywhere in the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.243.184 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not explicitly stated, but when Cyclops finally holds the baby, it holds out the locket with the picture of Scott and Jean and he remembers the stuff they both went through with Cable. Personally I'm not sure that's a sign that it's definitely her, but I can see why that guy might have thought that.DNMN (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation, and poor speculation at that. 199.111.190.38 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was under the impression the child might be Rachel Summers...but was Rachel Scott & Jean's daughter? --Mcr hxc (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rachel is Scott and Jean's daughter from the future. Any impression that the baby is Jean, Rachel, or any other Summers is pure speculation, and (as I said before) poor speculation at that. 128.143.248.240 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but in the hardcover it has the original plot by one of the writers, and it says that during the scene where Cable hands over the baby, Cyclops realizes who it really is, but not saying who excatly

No, the only Grey woman who is due a re-birth is someone far closer to Cable than Jean or Rachel - the baby is his mother Madelyne. Don't you remember after the X-men passed through the siege Perilous and fled to Australia, the very first clue the comic gave that Madelyne had inherited the Phoenix force? It was the glowing bird of flame reflected in her eyes during while she was plotting with Nastirh. Plus, Scott would been more hesitant to part with the baby if it were Rachel or Jean. Madelyne, on the other hand, he could take or leave. When the Scarlet Witch altered reality, she didn't create duplicates of people who were already living - Madelyne is the only one of the three who could have been conceived anew. Also, Sinister's latest death coincided with the discovery of the baby - Madelyne hates him possibly more than anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.163.85 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to the second Maddrox clone?

The second one is sent to the bad future, and the first one is sent to the "good?" future, but no mention is ever made of the first one :/ Kenoyer130 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to wordy and specific

I find the synopsis overloaded with details and almost a panel by panel reading. I think tightening up the text would make for a better read and overview. Kenoyer130 (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

This page states that Scot Eaton is one of the other artist's that do on issue, for the memory parts, but Scot Eaton is the main artist, or else he would haved left by now (june) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.61.243 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inferno

i'm just saying if you notice Messiah Complex, Divided Wea Stand, Maifest DEstiny, X-INfernus are all sequels to inferno