Iron Man: Rapture

[Paul Bourcier]

Okay, yet another Iron Man mini of questionable canonicity. What's the word on Iron Man: Rapture?

[Michael]

There's an interview with Irvine, who wrote Rapture, here:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=2 ... ge=article

"The Rapture" is a Marvel Knights story, which means you can tell the story you want without necessarily having to tie it into current Marvel continuity. So what's Tony Stark's status quo when this series begins? Is he still playing the classic roles of superhero/inventor/businessman/playboy?

He is! But since we're not beholden to regular continuity, Tony can go ahead and be his hard-partying, womanizing self - except that, in some ways, would be the expected move. So the leash is taken off Tony, but he doesn't run in the direction you might expect him to.

That sounds like Irvine is saying it's out of continuity.

[Paul Bourcier]

Thanks, Michael.

[Truebeliever]

There's an interview with Irvine, who wrote Rapture, here:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=2 ... ge=article

" ... you can tell the story you want without necessarily having to tie it into current Marvel continuity.


He is! But since we're not beholden to regular continuity, Tony can go ahead and be his hard-partying, womanizing self - except that, in some ways, would be the expected move. So the leash is taken off Tony, but he doesn't run in the direction you might expect him to.

Why do both interviewer and interviewee always insist on sloppy ambiguous terminology when discussing the canonicity of stories. This habit drives me nuts!

[Somebody]

Why do both interviewer and interviewee always insist on sloppy ambiguous terminology when discussing the canonicity of stories. This habit drives me nuts!

Not in their interest - out-of-continuity stories have historically sold fewer copies than in-continuity stories. The theory goes that leaving it ambiguous as to whether it's in the past or out-of-continuity gives the writer the best of both worlds (not always borne out by the facts).