Bought/Thought 9/26

[moraldeficiency]

To each his own. I still thought of Slapstick as a fairly heroic individual, and I can't find anything heroic about nearly killing someone because he bruised your feelings. We can agree to disagree, and you can at least take solace in the fact that your view seems to be the prevailing one with both creators and fans.

I see what your saying. The thing is I don't think Slott really writes heroes. He writes people, sometimes heroic, sometimes human, sometimes just evil. It's not just bruised feelings though, it's taking the names of people who have saved the lives of everyone on earth, his friends and calling them babykillers. Slapstick made a very important point here, actions have consequences and you can't just do whatever you want without reprocussions. Was it extreme, hell yeah. But so was the behavior of the so called hero instructors "leading" this group. You get what you sow.

 

[yenaled]

Gauntlet did nothing wrong, he's a drill instructor, it's his job.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Gauntlet did nothing wrong, he's a drill instructor, it's his job.

The covering up of MVP and disecting thing is cool in your opinion then? Also leading cadets still in training against Hydra (odd similarities to the NW's little fubar that he always harps about) was also ok?

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Slapstick didn't know about any cover up, and War Machine and Pym were pushing the half-trained recruits into battle, too. Slapstick beat on Gauntlet purely because Gauntlet was brow-beating him (which is indeed a drill instructor's job) and bad-mouthing the New Warriors, and on that basis he definitely didn't deserve it.

That said, I agree that everyone in the whole god-forsaken administration of Camp Hammond deserve to be arrested for their behavior, but the camp is what it is. They're training kids for wetwork, not to be heroes.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Slapstick didn't know about any cover up, and War Machine and Pym were pushing the half-trained recruits into battle, too. Slapstick beat on Gauntlet purely because Gauntlet was brow-beating him (which is indeed a drill instructor's job) and bad-mouthing the New Warriors, and on that basis he definitely didn't deserve it.

That said, I agree that everyone in the whole god-forsaken administration of Camp Hammond deserve to be arrested for their behavior, but the camp is what it is. They're training kids for wetwork, not to be heroes.

We don't know what he does or doesn't know. No one's been too quiet about it, and his powers are wacky enough he might have found out.

I agree War Machine and Pym are definately villains here. Especially Pym.

He beat him because of his NW statements not the brow beating he personally took, he seems to have enjoyed that by the expression on his face (except when the NW came into play). Did he deserve it? No. But MVP didn't deserve to die or have his body descreated. Truama didn't deserve to be put in a situation he clearly didn't want by people with no idea of his power set or what damage he could do. Armory didn't deserve to be depowered because the drill instructors screwed up. America doesn't deserve to have a evil nazi doing genetic experiments on its citizens. The NW didn't deserve to die and have all the lives they've saved countless times mean nothing because a villian killed a bunch of people.

So unfair situations are kinda the status quo here. Why should I care if Guantlet didn't get due process and consideration of his feelings?

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm not saying you should. I'm just pointing out that you're basically justifying Slapstick's actions against Gauntlet with things that Gauntlet wasn't really at fault for or that we have no evidence of Slapstick knowing about. He's a cog in a machine that's far bigger than just him. Yes, he's done bad things, and yes, we can speculate to high heaven, but the things we know that Slapstick knew Gauntlet did weren't in any way a real justification for a life-threatening beating. That's all I'm saying.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Hey I'm definately assuming, and this is all clearly my opinion.

Gauntlet isn't the worst offender but MVP's death is more his fault than anyone elses. He put Truama into the situation with no idea what his power set was and worst yet put the most dangerous other member in with him. He's lucky only one person died. That was both stupid and careless and could have been easily avoided by finding out a little about the cadets before putting them in fight or flight situations.

I guess we just differ on what should constitute a beating. I'll say this, if I was in the same situation I'd have killed him.

 

[Dread]

For my money, I'd never say Slapstick's act against Gauntlet was heroic. I've seen it as him snapping. Just because I personally didn't mind seeing Gauntlet being pummeled (much as people enjoy seeing Iron Man get beaten down these days) doesn't mean I'd call it a heroic act on Slapstick's part. To him it was more than "berating the NW". It was literally taking the names of his dead friends and using them as a curseword for bad superhero behavior. Imagine if all of a sudden, "pulling a Rogers" was used as codeword for superheroes who turned against the government (because Steve Rogers did that a few times before CW technically). I bet Winter Soldier would be sniping someone eventually.

I know that if I had friends I was at least on talking terms with, and knew they were good people and whatnot, and then had to not only live to see their one big mistake used as a catalyst for a fight but then used day in and day out by some reject from pompus-acting Iraq and I was immune to injury and had a hammer, one day I probably would snap. That wouldn't be heroic, though. But it is understandable. I've seen Spider-Man snap on Firelord for far less.

Considering that, though, it IS amazing Rage WASN'T the one, considering that he was a New Warrior for FAR longer than Slapstick was and Dwayne Taylor was his legal guardian. But if it had been him, he'd never have a chance of overcoming his crippling stereotypes.

Camp Hammond is there to train super soldiers, not superheroes, and there is a difference. And I wonder how long it will be before Gyrich & many of his callous leaders don't get some sort of repremand. They're potentially creating people far worse than the New Warriors. I mean, had Namoita simply murdered Nitro when she could have, Stamford'd been avoided. But that wasn't who she was.

 

[Tropico]

All Guantlet did was threaten violence. He wasn't outwitting people, he was bullying them. If Slapstick did anything else he would be in the negative zone in that fun little prison. He responded the same way he was treated. I know we're not gonna agree here, and that's fine I just don't see any other option if you gave a @hit about your friends and or just gave a @hit about the safety of yourself and your friends or if you just didn't like evil nazi's experimenting on your former teammates.

That's too bad. Like I said, I see lots of other options. I especially see how, if I care a $h!+ about my friends, I would think twice about putting them in a situation like...oh, I don't know...being sent to the brig because of something they didn't do by committing a violent act and leaving a calling card that implicates other people. I'd care enough to know that, if I gave a $h!+ about them, what I do reflects on them; and while it might seem badass to do something, the repercussions might affect them instead of me. Silencing someone through violence and leaving a clear mark what it was about will only further denigrate the memory of those people. I'm supposed to think that's giving a $h!+ about my friends? Not in my life.

 

[moraldeficiency]

That's too bad. Like I said, I see lots of other options. I especially see how, if I care a $h!+ about my friends, I would think twice about putting them in a situation like...oh, I don't know...being sent to the brig because of something they didn't do by committing a violent act and leaving a calling card that implicates other people. I'd care enough to know that, if I gave a $h!+ about them, what I do reflects on them; and while it might seem badass to do something, the repercussions might affect them instead of me. Silencing someone through violence and leaving a clear mark what it was about will only further denigrate the memory of those people. I'm supposed to think that's giving a $h!+ about my friends? Not in my life.

At least in the brig they're relatively safe. It's under the guidence of these "instructors" that seems to have them killing, dying or being experimented on. Also he outright said who he was as he was bashing Gauntlet, Gauntlet decided to lie about it because their actions were so bad, better to let Slapstick go then show stark what they're really up to.

Eventually you can choose to act or you can choose to not and condone behavior. Slapstick acted. I never said it was heroic, I said it was appropriate. Let me put it to you in this way, Gauntlet a trained soldier couldn't take being told by Gyrich that there's a difference between soldiers and heroes, Gyrich wasn't even putting them down and almost got his @ss kicked. Now what if someone called an American soldier a baby killer in front of Gauntlet and what if that same soldier (who had made a mistake) was also responsible for saving Gauntlet and his entire company from massacre. Gauntlet would have killed him, point blank. Slapstick, right or wrong, acted no differently and probably with a great deal more restraint, than his disciplined/trained instructor would have.

Maybe you would sit back and let people bad mouth the memories of those you love and care about for some moral higher ground. Personally I'd kick their @ss.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm sure a lot of people would do the same as you. But hey, remember that time, ages past, when we used to hold our superheroes to a higher moral standard? That's the real failing of Camp Hammond, as far as I'm concerned; it's telling these kids that it's okay to act like these costumed soldiers and 'heroes' they see around them, when the real heroes are the ones who rise above the kind of stuff the Hammond administration is involved in and demand more of themselves to set an example--your Captain Americas and Spider-Men (when he's not spouting empty threats about killing people, anyway). Slapstick's pretty tragic in that sense, since he's clearly fallen down to their level.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I'm sure a lot of people would do the same as you. But hey, remember that time, ages past, when we used to hold our superheroes to a higher moral standard? That's the real failing of Camp Hammond, as far as I'm concerned; it's telling these kids that it's okay to act like these costumed soldiers and 'heroes' they see around them, when the real heroes are the ones who rise above the kind of stuff the Hammond administration is involved in and demand more of themselves to set an example--your Captain Americas and Spider-Men (when he's not spouting empty threats about killing people, anyway). Slapstick's pretty tragic in that sense, since he's clearly fallen down to their level.

I agree completely, but like I said from the beginning this isn't a "hero" book, this is a human story. No one seems to be completely heroic or villianous (except the Nazi), I like my books to have a bit of gray in them. When I want a hero I'll pick up Spidey but I also dig a bit of complexity with moral questions that I could empathize with. Besides no one really had an opinion or care about Slapstick before this, now he's pretty cool all of a sudden. If Slott hadn't touched the character like this he would have probably just faded out. Personally I'm just loving this book and the characters in it. Slapstick isn't the moral hero he was, but he is now interesting and like the great man wrote, "better to be hated and damned by god but noticed, then to be good and forgotten".

 

[fifthfiend]

Gauntlet did nothing wrong, he's a drill instructor, it's his job.

You could say the same for Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket, that doesn't mean I shed a whole lot of tears when he got what he did.

I mean it's fine and well to say this is his job but well, when your job is "professional *******" then sometimes there's gonna be consequences for doing that job. Especially when, like Gauntlet did, you forget that there are still limits to the liberties you can take in doing that job.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I agree completely, but like I said from the beginning this isn't a "hero" book, this is a human story. No one seems to be completely heroic or villianous (except the Nazi), I like my books to have a bit of gray in them. When I want a hero I'll pick up Spidey but I also dig a bit of complexity with moral questions that I could empathize with. Besides no one really had an opinion or care about Slapstick before this, now he's pretty cool all of a sudden. If Slott hadn't touched the character like this he would have probably just faded out. Personally I'm just loving this book and the characters in it. Slapstick isn't the moral hero he was, but he is now interesting and like the great man wrote, "better to be hated and damned by god but noticed, then to be good and forgotten".

Best to be good and noticed like Captain America, Superman, Spider-Man, et al., though.

 

[Tropico]

At least in the brig they're relatively safe. It's under the guidence of these "instructors" that seems to have them killing, dying or being experimented on. Also he outright said who he was as he was bashing Gauntlet, Gauntlet decided to lie about it because their actions were so bad, better to let Slapstick go then show stark what they're really up to.

IMO, the jury is still out on if Gauntlet consciously lied or if it's something else due to the beating.

Eventually you can choose to act or you can choose to not and condone behavior. Slapstick acted. I never said it was heroic, I said it was appropriate. Let me put it to you in this way, Gauntlet a trained soldier couldn't take being told by Gyrich that there's a difference between soldiers and heroes, Gyrich wasn't even putting them down and almost got his @ss kicked. Now what if someone called an American soldier a baby killer in front of Gauntlet and what if that same soldier (who had made a mistake) was also responsible for saving Gauntlet and his entire company from massacre. Gauntlet would have killed him, point blank. Slapstick, right or wrong, acted no differently and probably with a great deal more restraint, than his disciplined/trained instructor would have.

Again, another assumption on your part. He could have done the same thing Slapstick did. Although, I'm still not sure if Slapstick intended to just beat Gauntlet or not, it could be a failed assassination attempt.

Maybe you would sit back and let people bad mouth the memories of those you love and care about for some moral higher ground. Personally I'd kick their @ss.

I'm reminded of the Shawshank Redemption in your past trio or more of posts...Are you obtuse? Are you unaware or is it an intentional thing? Once again you fail to see the other action that can be taken without having to resort to violence. Of course, your comments about what YOU would do and how YOU like your comics makes it very clear...to you there is NO other option but to beat the hell out of that person so you don't hear their offending words anymore.

While Corp and I advocate a higher standard for what are supposed to be heroes (yeah, you just see them as people. Reality check: These ARE superhero comic books), we aren't saying that you're supposed to just stand back and do nothing. We're not even implying it. We've said it in a number of posts. It's like what a lot of people were saying about Cap during Civil War, there are other channels that could have been explored and used but it didn't happen that way.

 

[RockSP]

Also he outright said who he was as he was bashing Gauntlet,

No he didn't.

 

[moraldeficiency]

IMO, the jury is still out on if Gauntlet consciously lied or if it's something else due to the beating.



Again, another assumption on your part. He could have done the same thing Slapstick did. Although, I'm still not sure if Slapstick intended to just beat Gauntlet or not, it could be a failed assassination attempt.



I'm reminded of the Shawshank Redemption in your past trio or more of posts...Are you obtuse? Are you unaware or is it an intentional thing? Once again you fail to see the other action that can be taken without having to resort to violence. Of course, your comments about what YOU would do and how YOU like your comics makes it very clear...to you there is NO other option but to beat the hell out of that person so you don't hear their offending words anymore.

While Corp and I advocate a higher standard for what are supposed to be heroes (yeah, you just see them as people. Reality check: These ARE superhero comic books), we aren't saying that you're supposed to just stand back and do nothing. We're not even implying it. We've said it in a number of posts. It's like what a lot of people were saying about Cap during Civil War, there are other channels that could have been explored and used but it didn't happen that way.

He made up the whole story? No, it was a cover. Now you're being obtuse.

I agree we don't know exactely but you don't threaten a man like Gyrich unless you're prepared to back it up. So either Gauntlet is a moron and coward or he actually meant what he said and by correlation would have done exactely what Slapstick did.

Wow, Shawshank redemption. Nothing quite as poetic and meaningful as using Steven King to say something for you. What I was saying is you can only push someone so far without them breaking and what Slapstick did was break. Gauntlet should have seen it coming, being a drill instructor does not mean you lose all common sense in the process. When I joined the service was right after they went all PC and you could no longer call people @ags or anything else deemed "hate speech", but you know what? The drill instructors still managed to be insulting and motivating without devolving into personal attacks.

Reality check back at you just cause they're superhero tales doesn't mean you can't slip a decent story that makes you think. It's not all black and white and sometimes stories in that gray area can read rather well. Get over yourself kid, I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, I'm saying I get what he did and I liked the story.

Look some people only like the black and white (supes, bugs, sentry, archie) but some people also dig more complex storylines where issues blur (initiative, thunderbolts, suicide squad, black adam) just cause you can't understand the motivation and you'd rather all the characters talk about their feelings and knit together doesn't mean some of us are going to say @uck knitting I want some conflict and drama.

Lastly, while I try not to talk for anyone else on the board as they can express their opinions better and more accurately than I can I will say I believe that Corp. was saying that since slapstick was a heroic character and has never "gone to the dark side" if you will then this was just changing a character for shock value, I don't think he was saying he wants all heroes to be boyscouts and all villians to be republicians. But I could be wrong.

 

[moraldeficiency]

No he didn't.

Slapstick was yelling at him as he beat him with props, I don't think Gauntlet thought the voice and mannerisms were that of former president Tricky Dick Nixon back from the grave and looking for blood.

 

[RockSP]

Who knows how long he beat him before he gave his little speech? Guantlet could have been unconcious already.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Lastly, while I try not to talk for anyone else on the board as they can express their opinions better and more accurately than I can I will say I believe that Corp. was saying that since slapstick was a heroic character and has never "gone to the dark side" if you will then this was just changing a character for shock value, I don't think he was saying he wants all heroes to be boyscouts and all villians to be republicians. But I could be wrong.

I don't advocate that all heroes be a certain way. That would be boring. I think guys like the Punisher and Venom and Wolverine can enrich a fictional landscape a lot more than just seeing every single superhero be a cookie-cutter perfect human being. I just don't like seeing characters who've never shown an ounce of anti-hero behavior suddenly turn into violent loons. But I was only talking about heroism in general terms when you started applauding Slapstick for thrashing Gauntlet.

In Slapstick's case, it wasn't even really a question of heroism; I don't think anyone who enjoyed his turn is ready to pin him down as either a villain or even an anti-hero yet. He's just a guy who was pushed too far and snapped. My problem with Slapstick in particular is that I don't really see the need to bring that element to the character. He was created as a fun, goofy, joke character, and I'm one of the (apparently few) people who just enjoy characters like that at face value, on a very simple level. I love Spider-Ham. I love the Franklin Richards: Son of a Genius comics that Sumerak and Eliopoulos are putting out. I wouldn't want to see either of those characters suddenly snap and have a violent psychotic episode. I didn't want to see Slapstick in that light either.

The story's fine, it's got its merits, I still like Slott, blah, blah, blah. It's just a personal thing: I loved Slapstick as the spastic, goofy oddball he was intended to be, but now Slott's taken that away from me. Whether Slapstick grows as a character is irrelevant. Speedball is certainly growing and showing new facets to his character as Penance, but almost everyone around here hates him for it and would prefer to see him return to his comic roots--granted, he's not as extreme an example as Slapstick because he had some depth to him beforehand, but the point still stands. Different people perceive characters different ways, and some perceptions of those characters are very dear to some of us. I picked Slapstick's first issue up at a grocery store as a kid and it became a comic I just loved on a very simple level. Slott changing the character to be a violent psychopath kind of robs me of that little, innocent piece of my childhood.

Anyway, I honestly didn't mean to rant on this again, so I'll just leave it at that. The comic's out and it is what it is. Some people love it; I don't. But I think I've said everything I can on the subject for myself at this point.

 

[moraldeficiency]

well put

 

[moraldeficiency]

Who knows how long he beat him before he gave his little speech? Guantlet could have been unconcious already.

You have a point there, and I did not consider it, but I think it unlikely as it seemed slapstick wanted him to hear him out, to know why it was happening.

Other question I've been thinking about: how did the warbound knock Slapstick out?

 

[Tropico]

He made up the whole story? No, it was a cover. Now you're being obtuse.

I don't mind being called obtuse when I don't know all that's happening. The story points kinda lead you to think that Gauntlet might have been covering up, but I've been burned so much by what is the obvious assumption and then it turns out to be a red herring.

I agree we don't know exactely but you don't threaten a man like Gyrich unless you're prepared to back it up. So either Gauntlet is a moron and coward or he actually meant what he said and by correlation would have done exactely what Slapstick did.

Actually, I saw it as Gauntlet reading Gyrich and knowing that a strong enough show of words was enough to shut him up; at least in front of Gauntlet. The same way you list all the repercussions it would have had if Slapstick or the others talked back, I see all the repercussions it would have if he assaulted Gyrich. Could he be reckless enough to do it? I don't know, I don't share the same certainty as you that the character is a self righteous hot head.

Wow, Shawshank redemption. Nothing quite as poetic and meaningful as using Steven King to say something for you. What I was saying is you can only push someone so far without them breaking and what Slapstick did was break. Gauntlet should have seen it coming, being a drill instructor does not mean you lose all common sense in the process. When I joined the service was right after they went all PC and you could no longer call people @ags or anything else deemed "hate speech", but you know what? The drill instructors still managed to be insulting and motivating without devolving into personal attacks.

This is something I've been commenting since the comic started, there's no need to bash the New Warriors. I debated it for a bunch of posts with UpsetSpideyFan (I think it was) in that Gauntlet was doing his job and I was saying that there are better ways to do it. Not because everyone should be all PC and nice, but precisely because the Warriors DON'T deserve it.

Reality check back at you just cause they're superhero tales doesn't mean you can't slip a decent story that makes you think. It's not all black and white and sometimes stories in that gray area can read rather well. Get over yourself kid, I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, I'm saying I get what he did and I liked the story.

Look some people only like the black and white (supes, bugs, sentry, archie) but some people also dig more complex storylines where issues blur (initiative, thunderbolts, suicide squad, black adam) just cause you can't understand the motivation and you'd rather all the characters talk about their feelings and knit together doesn't mean some of us are going to say @uck knitting I want some conflict and drama.

I'm trying not to jump to conclusions but I get the feeling you see me as black/white guy. You're very wrong. Go to the DC Forum and check out who made the Suicide Squad Mini thread. Go and see who hates that Amanda Waller is being made into a one tone (black) character instead of the very complex shades of grays she is. I don't mind gray. But I feel there is a need for absolutes also. All washes of gray gets tiresome to me. I like that there are complex characters that still stand for "white" like Supes (and I don't read his title). I also loved Sivana's speech about villains in Outsiders where he says that not all bad guys are bad guys because of the situations, there are simply people who are bad (like him). I also like that there are characters that are inherently funny/happy/jokey and have their own complexities without having to go all Punisher or Emoball on us. It's the writer's fault to make these characters one dimensional, being positive despite the problems you face doesn't mean you don't have problems, just that you choose to be upbeat while facing them. Speedball had depth to me, but I'm probably one of the few people that thinks so.

 

[Dread]

I don't advocate that all heroes be a certain way. That would be boring. I think guys like the Punisher and Venom and Wolverine can enrich a fictional landscape a lot more than just seeing every single superhero be a cookie-cutter perfect human being. I just don't like seeing characters who've never shown an ounce of anti-hero behavior suddenly turn into violent loons. But I was only talking about heroism in general terms when you started applauding Slapstick for thrashing Gauntlet.

In Slapstick's case, it wasn't even really a question of heroism; I don't think anyone who enjoyed his turn is ready to pin him down as either a villain or even an anti-hero yet. He's just a guy who was pushed too far and snapped. My problem with Slapstick in particular is that I don't really see the need to bring that element to the character. He was created as a fun, goofy, joke character, and I'm one of the (apparently few) people who just enjoy characters like that at face value, on a very simple level. I love Spider-Ham. I love the Franklin Richards: Son of a Genius comics that Sumerak and Eliopoulos are putting out. I wouldn't want to see either of those characters suddenly snap and have a violent psychotic episode. I didn't want to see Slapstick in that light either.

The story's fine, it's got its merits, I still like Slott, blah, blah, blah. It's just a personal thing: I loved Slapstick as the spastic, goofy oddball he was intended to be, but now Slott's taken that away from me. Whether Slapstick grows as a character is irrelevant. Speedball is certainly growing and showing new facets to his character as Penance, but almost everyone around here hates him for it and would prefer to see him return to his comic roots--granted, he's not as extreme an example as Slapstick because he had some depth to him beforehand, but the point still stands. Different people perceive characters different ways, and some perceptions of those characters are very dear to some of us. I picked Slapstick's first issue up at a grocery store as a kid and it became a comic I just loved on a very simple level. Slott changing the character to be a violent psychopath kind of robs me of that little, innocent piece of my childhood.

Anyway, I honestly didn't mean to rant on this again, so I'll just leave it at that. The comic's out and it is what it is. Some people love it; I don't. But I think I've said everything I can on the subject for myself at this point.

It wasn't a reply to me, but it is well put and I agree on many angles.

I'd never say what Slapstick did was heroic.

And it revisits the point that 2-3 years ago, Slott was there writing GLA #1 with Squirrel-Girl essentially misty eyed over the "old days" when "comic books were a world you wanted to escape to, and not from". And while I enjoy A:TI and all that, and am glad that Slott is hitting the big time, I can see how A:TI in a way is in danger of becoming the same sort of stuff he lampooned in other comics.

Which can be touchy. I mean, bash Bendis all we want, he's never lampooned writers who randomly kill C-Listers, smash continuity, or make endless errors regarding powers and motivations like he himself does. Slott's lampooned the trend of twisting every happy-go-lucky character, including Speedball. And while I didn't hate the Slapstick thing, I can easily see how it could border hypocrisy.

That said, I do trust Slott with continuity, characters, and the sandbox that is Marvel. He knows how to share, to do research, and so on. Hopefully Slappy can come out of this with his head held high. Even if it seems in the 21st century, any character without some sort of skeleton in the closet winds up dead, imprisoned in a niche market, or in Limbo. And that goes for DC too. I could argue they helped make that stuff "in" again with IDENTITY CRISIS.