Jean Grey (Phoenix) and Elixir teased for Marvel Rivals Season 3 - Leaks, abilities, voicelines, and more
Jean Grey (Phoenix) in Marvel Rivals (Image via Shim0rin)
Marvel Rivals Season 2 Cerebro Database
event page mentions two omega-level mutants,
Jean Grey (Phoenix) and Elixir
, hinting towards their possible release as new heroes in
Marvel Rivals Season 3
. This was further confirmed by several data miners and leakers who provided elaborate details entailing their role and abilities. These two new heroes are from the X-Men comics with unique abilities that are speculated to have a significant impact on the gameplay and meta.
This article will brief you on all the latest hints and leaks regarding the new hero Jean Grey or Phoenix coming in Marvel Rivals Season 3, inclduding her leaked abilities.
Marvel Rivals teases new heroes coming in Season 3
A new set of challenges has been unlocked in the Marvel Rivals Cerebro Database event page by revealing the Black Panther tile. A Reddit user, Sypher04, sharply noted the mention of
'Jean Grey…Marvel'
and
'Joshua Foley….Elixir'
, which was inscribed under the challenges. He posted a picture of this on Reddit, leading to widespread speculations of Jean Grey and Elixir releasing in Marvel Rivals Season 3. Here's what he said:
'In every event page available so far, Jean Grey (Marvel Girl) and Joshua Foley (Elixir) are listed underneath the challenges. It was initially speculated that Jean Grey would show up in Season 3 with Captain Marvel, but it may actually be Elixir.'
This suggests that
Jean Grey, also known as Phoenix
, and
J
oshuo Foley, also known as Elixir
, are likely to be the new heroes in Marvel Rivals Season 3.
All leaked voice lines of Jean Grey in Marvel Rivals
In addition to official teases, several voicelines of Phoenix (Jean Grey) were leaked by trusted data miner X0XLEAK. These interactions with Storm, Rocket Raccoon, Namor, and Magik further confirm that Jean Grey or Phoenix might be coming in Marvel Rivals Season 3. Here are all the leaked voicelines:
Storm: My Oldest Friend ; Yes Jean, we need all your power.
Rocket: Hey, I'm looking for a giant tree and some humanoid morons. You seen them? They're kind of my only friends. ; Whoa! When?
Namor: Then perhaps it's time for me to rise above and to reduce those foes who could not be drowned to ashes.
Magik: The Phoenix won't be gone for long. ; That's what we need Phoenix.
All leaked abilities of Jean Grey in Marvel Rivals
Jean Grey (Phoenix), is an Omega-level mutant in the X-Men comics with superior telepathy and telekinesis abilities. She will most likely be the new
duelist
in Marvel Rivals Season 3. Her ability set is distributed into two distinct forms that she can switch between, much like Emma Frost. Jean Grey's powers will revolve around matter manipulation, mind control, and possibly grant her self-resurrection. Here are the leaked abilities of Jean Grey in Marvel Rivals that we know so far.
Form
Type
Ability Name
Description
Base Form
Passive
Psychic Block
Mutes enemies and prevents them from using abilities for 3 seconds.
Phoenix Form
Passive
Resurrection Flame
Upon defeat, burns the surrounding area for 5 seconds before respawning.
New strategist hero Elixir in Marvel Rivals Season 3
Joshua Foley, aka Elixir, is an Omega-level mutant from the X-Men franchise known for his biokinetic abilities. It can be inferred from the X-Men comics that Elixir will most likely be a
strategist
in Marvel Rivals. He will likely have a unique kit that grants him powerful healing and reviving abilities, but with relatively weak offensive abilities.
For a more detailed breakdown on Elixir's abilities in Marvel Rivals, read
Elixir Leaked as New Hero in Marvel Rivals Season 3: Full Ability Breakdown
.
Also read:
Marvel Rivals Season 2 Hero Tier List: Best heroes for high and low ranks
Marvel Rivals latest leaks reveal 22 new heroes set to hit the game
Get the latest
IPL 2025
updates on
Times of India
, including
match schedules
,
team squads
,
points table
and
IPL live score
for
CSK
,
MI
,
RCB
,
KKR
,
SRH
,
LSG
,
DC
,
GT
,
PBKS
, and
RR
. Don't miss the list of players in the race for
IPL Orange Cap
and
IPL Purple cap
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Aly Goni Posts Sidharth-Kiara Meme, Writes 'Enough Internet For Today'
Recently, the Laughter Chefs contestant shared an old photo of Jasmin on his Instagram stories, where she was seen wearing a white crop-top and jeans. Aly captioned the picture with, 'Kya Jasmin chapri hai (Is Jasmin tacky)," and added a laughing emoji. In response, Jasmin shared a sketch of Aly and wrote, 'Kya Aly chapri hai (Is Aly tacky)". Although Aly was playfully teasing his girlfriend on social media, the 'chapri" comment did not sit well with netizens. Many users took to Reddit to criticise Aly, expressing their disappointment in his words. Some accused him of disrespecting his girlfriend, while others labelled him a 'red flag". 'Who posts like this about their girlfriend?" one user commented. 'This guy is such a red flag, it's unreal," another added. One netizen even described them as 'a weird couple." Another user wrote, 'They both are d**b actually. It's not even funny, but still, Jasmin posted a sketch of him, but Aly posting this picture is just gross." However, fans of Aly and Jasmin came to their defence, suggesting that since the actors have moved in together, calling each other 'chapri" on Instagram might simply be a playful dare. As for Sidharth Malhotra and Kiara Advani, the couple met on the sets of Shershaah and fell in love. They got married in 2023, and are now awaiting the birth of their first child.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
US strikes Iran: How Tom Cruise's Top Gun: Maverick eerily predicted Donald Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer
When Top Gun: Maverick stormed theatres in 2022, it wasn't just a sequel—it was a resurrection. It defied every law of modern franchise gravity. No multiverse. No Marvel. No brooding they-them anti-hero. Just the return of a square-jawed cis-American icon doing exactly what he did 36 years ago—only faster, louder, and with a bigger sonic boom, looking like the folks at Scientology had finally found the Fountain of Youth. What made it work? First, it respected the original. No irony. No winks. No smug Gen Z subtext. Tom Cruise didn't hand over the keys—he repossessed the plane, flew it through a canyon at Mach 1.6, and landed it on an aircraft carrier with his grin cryogenically preserved in confidence. Kenny Loggins was still on standby. The soundtrack still slapped. The opening still had that slow-mo montage of jets and muscle, set to a synth-and-snare build-up so patriotic it practically handed you a Coors Light and called you "sir. " There was shirtless beach football. Beer without guilt. Bros being bros in the golden light of American masculinity. Maverick didn't just bring back a movie—it brought back a memory. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Eat 1 Teaspoon Every Night, See What Happens A Week Later [Video] getfittoday Undo Of the good old days, before drone warfare, before greyzone psyops, before movies needed three disclaimers and a trigger warning. A time when war was sexy, the rules were simple, and the only labels that mattered were 'friendly' and 'bogey on your six.' Second, it was real. Practical stunts. Real G-forces. No Marvel mush or green-screen gibberish. You felt every dive, every roll, every breath in a cockpit that looked more like a coffin. In an age of CGI fatigue, Maverick reminded viewers what cinema used to feel like—sweaty palms and pounding heartbeats, set to the scream of a jet engine. But above all, Top Gun: Maverick gave audiences something even rarer: sincerity. It wasn't cynical. It wasn't ashamed of heroism. It put on aviators, turned up the volume, and said: "Let's go." Top Gun Maverick Beach Scene 4K IMAX And go it did—straight into the heart of America's foreign policy theatre. Because what looked like a nostalgia-fuelled testosterone trip in 2022 now feels like something far more uncanny in 2025. As President Donald Trump orders a massive stealth strike on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, Maverick doesn't look like a movie anymore. It looks like a propehcy. A daring pre-emptive strike. An underground uranium plant. A ticking clock. A threat not to America, but to unnamed "allies in the region." What once felt like high-octane fantasy is now playing out, almost scene for scene, in the skies above the Middle East. And Tom Cruise? He wasn't just making a sequel. He was filming the trailer for Trump's next war. The Anti-Woke Hit That Soared When Maverick dropped, it didn't just break box-office records—it broke Hollywood's progressive chokehold on patriotism. No identity politics. No postmodern angst. No war guilt disguised as character development. Just raw American adrenaline, jet-fuelled storytelling, and Tom Cruise doing what Tom Cruise does best—defying gravity and cultural trends alike. Even Jon Hamm showed up, having shed the whiskey-soaked aura of Don Draper to play a tight-laced, by-the-book commander who looked like he personally banned pronouns from the base. You could almost smell the Aqua Velva. The cast was tailor-made for culture-war glory. Miles Teller stepped in as Rooster—Goose's mustachioed legacy—looking like he belonged on a recruitment poster for bros who bench for liberty. Monica Barbaro played Phoenix, the token female pilot who neither lectured nor got lectured—just flew like hell and left feminism on mute. Glen Powell's Hangman was Iceman 2.0: arrogant, tanned, and ready to drop a snide remark along with his payload. Jennifer Connelly was there too, ageless and cool, running a bar where no one talks politics. No lectures. No apologies. Just call signs, dogfights, and sweat-drenched montages scored to the sound of American confidence. Reagan Redux: Top Gun Was Always Propaganda Top Gun (1986) Official Trailer - Tom Cruise Movie The 1986 Top Gun wasn't just a movie—it was Cold War propaganda with better hair. The Pentagon handed over carriers, jets, and script suggestions. Hollywood returned the favour by air-dropping a generation of recruits into Navy flight school. It was recruitment wrapped in romance and set to guitar riffs. Maverick followed the same flight path. The military offered full support. The Navy looked like gods. But this time, there was a twist: the enemy was unnamed. No Soviet MiGs. No al-Qaeda. Just a faceless rogue nation with a uranium facility in the mountains. The target? An underground enrichment site. The mission? Destroy it before it becomes operational. The threat? Not to America—but to our unnamed "allies in the region." Nobody said Iran. Nobody said Israel. And yet everybody knew. That narrative sleight of hand—so brazen in its vagueness—would soon feel less like creative license and more like strategic foreshadowing. Scene for Scene: Trump's Iran Strike Mirrors the Film In June 2025, President Trump—new term, same instincts—ordered a real-world operation that bore eerie resemblance to Maverick. Seven B-2 bombers took off from the US under the cloak of midnight. The mission: Operation Midnight Hammer. The target: Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility, buried in the mountains near Qom. A site designed to withstand everything short of Armageddon. A site built for this very moment. In Maverick, the enemy is never named, but the target is clear: a uranium plant in a GPS-jammed valley, surrounded by surface-to-air missiles and fifth-gen fighters. In real life, Fordow sits in a mountainous fortress, shielded by SAM batteries, jamming tech, and hardened bunkers. In the film: three weeks become ten days become go-time. In reality: intel warned that Iran's enrichment programme was just days from a critical threshold. And in both cases, the justification was identical: not America-first, but ally-defence. In Maverick, it's the vague protection of "our friends in the region." In 2025, Trump didn't even bother with euphemism—Israel was the subtext and subtext became text. It wasn't a shot-for-shot remake. But it was close enough to make even Cruise raise an eyebrow behind his aviators. Whose War Is It Anyway? What made Maverick eerie in hindsight was how little it bothered to justify the mission. No American hostages. No nukes pointed at New York. Just an unspoken understanding that someone else's red line was worth flying into. And that's what the Right is now debating. Why should American pilots risk their lives for foreign bunkers? Why should billion-dollar aircraft be dispatched to send messages on behalf of another democracy? Maverick doesn't ask "why." It only asks: "Can it be done?" That question, in 2025, is no longer rhetorical. The Real Finale: A Flag, a Flyby… and a Fade to Black Maverick ends like every great American military fantasy: mission accomplished, uranium plant obliterated, and Tom Cruise strutting across the tarmac with his abs and aircraft intact. The jets land. The music swells. The flag flutters in cinematic slow motion. It could have been lifted straight from the closing scene of Operation Midnight Hammer. But imagine for a second that Maverick didn't make it. That he was shot down in that snowy canyon, dying for a target that never threatened his home, buried in a country he couldn't name, on a mission no one would claim. Would the audience still cheer? Would they even remember who the war was for? This is the question now circling Washington like an unarmed drone—silent, discomfiting, and impossible to shoot down. When the justification for war is wrapped in vagueness, when the enemy is unnamed, and when "defending our allies" becomes the only plotline—how long before audiences, and voters, stop watching the show? After all, wasn't this the very premise Trump once campaigned against? That MAGA would not behave like Bush-era neocons salivating for another war? That America's sons and daughters would no longer be deployed as global hall monitors in faraway deserts? Only last month in Saudi Arabia, Trump, trying to draw a red line between himself and Dubya, declared: 'In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. ' As David Remnick pointed out in a recent piece in New Yorker , Trump once echoed Bannon and Tucker Carlson when he said: 'In recent years, far too many American Presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins.' Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Dagger Attack Scene And yet, here we are—seven stealth bombers later. A highly classified mission. A decoy formation. A multi-theatre deployment. A strike not to defend American cities, but to send a message on behalf of regional allies. It may have looked like surgical precision from the skies—but on the ground, it's a policy contradiction wrapped in cinematic déjà vu. Even the bill Trump signed to fund the strike—what he called a 'big, beautiful defence package'—flies in the face of MAGA's small-government gospel. This wasn't lean governance. It was big-budget interventionism, scored by swelling violins and paid for with a trillion-dollar cheque. It ignited a backlash from his base—and a very public falling out with Elon Musk, who accused Trump of abandoning fiscal discipline for Pentagon theatrics. Because it didn't start with a movie. It started with a massacre. On October 7, 2023, Hamas fighters paraglided into southern Israel, launching the deadliest attack in the country's history. That single morning shattered illusions across the region. It led to a brutal war in Gaza. It provoked the Houthis to enter the fray. It drew Hezbollah closer to the edge. And it hardened Israel's posture, setting off a chain reaction that eventually led the US to launch Operation Midnight Hammer. From beach football to bunker busters, from afterburners to actual airstrikes—Top Gun began as propaganda. Maverick upgraded it into spectacle. And Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer may be the moment the reel became real. The movie always had the jets. Reality just pressed play. And if that doesn't make you pause—even if you're wearing aviators—just remember: Not even Tom Cruise can outrun a B-2 bomber. Though, to be fair, he'd probably try. On foot. While dangling off a missile. Smiling. As for the true MAGA believers—those who rallied behind promises of no more endless wars and a return to fiscal sanity—they're left asking the same question Maverick once did: Whose mission was this anyway?
India.com
7 hours ago
- India.com
After Air India plane crash, Virat Kohli and Genelia D'Souza's controversial ad goes viral, it was banned due to...
Star cricketer Virat Kohli once had a crush on actress Genelia D'Souza. He mentioned in an interview that he admired her, but nothing ever developed between them. Genelia went on to date actor Riteish Deshmukh, and the two eventually got married. Virat, on the other hand, began dating actress Anushka Sharma, and the couple tied the knot in 2017. They first met during an ad shoot. Interestingly, before meeting Anushka, Virat had also done a commercial with Genelia Deshmukh for Fastrack, shot inside an aeroplane, a campaign that later became controversial. Controversial plane advertisement of Virat Kohli and Genelia D'Souza Virat and Genelia's advertisement created a stir online and was banned shortly after its release on Indian television. It was deemed too suggestive for the Indian audience and was pulled by the authorities due to its 'adult content'. The video featured Genelia as an air hostess who seduces 'pilot' Virat into having sex with her mid-air during an operational flight. The ad implied that the autopilot mode was introduced by airlines for such encounters. The advertisement is still available on YouTube, and netizens are now trolling Genelia, questioning why she agreed to be part of such a script. The caption of the video says, 'The ad of Genelia and Virat was so controversial that it got banned within its release.' Watch Virat Kohli-Genelia D'souza's viral advertisement here: The Reddit post went viral after an Air India passenger plane crashed in Ahmedabad on June 12 while en route to London. The ad of Genelia and virat was so controversial that it got banned within its release byu/Fuzzy_Tadpole_3117 inBollyBlindsNGossip Around 300 people lost their lives in this tragic accident. There were 242 people on board – 230 passengers, two pilots, and 10 crew members, when the aircraft crashed into a medical college just seconds after taking off for London Gatwick Airport from Ahmedabad. Of these, only one, an Indian-origin British national, survived the crash. Former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani was among the victims.
