Slott developed She-Hulk pretty well without neglecting the humor or having her beat anyone into a coma.
Point. But given that, having some faith in Slott may be justified. It took him more than one issue to declare Starfox's innocence, didn't it?
Meaning, that he goes against the grain and actually gives a **** about the characters that he writes.
Exactly. Slott hasn't proclaimed that either continuity gets in the way, or that he is above that sort of thing, like other writers. He works with the past most often. And when he says he "loves" a character, that isn't code for "kill them in body/characterization".
I hope he's got more in store to ultimately redeem Slapstick, then, because he didn't seem to love him too much in A:TI.
I think Slott has used Slapstick in interesting ways. Really, who else has used Slappy since the mid-late 90's in ANYTHING!? Heck, Slott didn't even have him redesigned. The problem is, without adding SOMETHING, Slapstick is just a punchline, like Plastic Man can be most times.
I was shocked too. But that's basically all it was--a cheap shock--unless Slott follows it up and we get to see some kind of resolution between the innocent, fun Slapstick of yesterday and the violent, sociopathic Slapstick of A:TI.
I'll admit for now it is shock value. I'll even admit had this been Bendis, I'd be spewing venom right now. I lean pro-Slott, most times (although I will admit that most of his JLA CLASSIFIED arc with Red King was bit...mediocre).
As I started elsewhere, the problem with an innocent, fun characters these days is it goes nowhere. Look at Squirrel Girl. She is fun, good for a gag or commentary, and whatnot, and she is awesome to read about...but if you are looking for character depth, you won't find it, and I doubt it will happen soon, because that requires being more than a punchline.
The message I got from this was that Slapstick snapped. Much as when, say, Spider-Man declared he would kill Green Goblin or Sin-Eater, and both times actually TRIED to (or WANTED to, at least briefly). Norman was saved by a cable, and Sin-Eater by Daredevil.
Well, yeah, anyone with Slapstick's powers who's not an innocuous fool is going to be dangerous. He's functionally invincible and can create anything he wants out of thin air. I always wanted to see an evil Slapstick. But I didn't really want Slapstick himself to be evil, hence my objection to the recent A:TI issue.
Calling Slapstick "evil" is going a bit too far. He sucker-stomped Gauntlet, sure, but he isn't illegal. I can't count how many times Wolverine has suckered some non-criminal character for whatever reason and he wasn't evil. Hell, back in the 70's and 80's he would downright think about allowing Cyclops to die so he could get Jean during some adventures.
Quite frankly, I am sure most readers felt a beating on Gauntlet was long in coming. He turned the NW legacy into a curseword and that is fundamentally wrong. After all, members of the military historically have caused atrosities or errors that cost countless lives, and he would be insulted if someone dissed Marines as he dissed the NW's.
After all, really, was filming their superhero battle for a TV show THAT morally wrong? Luke Cage & Iron Fist used to be "heroes for hire" for years, doing gigs for a paycheck. Cage even declared war on Dr. Doom for a measily $200-$400 or something (back in the 70's, but even for inflation, imagine someone declaring war on a small country because their despot owed them a grand or two). Spider-Man used to sell photos of his adventures for income for most of his superhero career; hell, in his first battle with Sandman, he literally committs fraud by creating fake pictures of him punching sand because he neglected to snap shots of Marko at Midtown High, figuring J.J. was enough of a sourpuss to deserve being cheated every now and again. None of their names have been as dragged through the mud as Gauntlet did for the NW's.
Privately, Gauntlet may have cared for his cadets or suffered guilt for all but causing MVP's death with shoddy planning. But that is the bare minimum. It would be like Stark admitting remourse for all the backhanded crap during CW; it's nice and a step forward, but that alone won't win over many.
Slapstick attacked Gauntlet because he felt he had "laughed at his dead friends" long enough. He was misguided and emotional. Not evil. Evil would be, say, teaming up with HYDRA to get revenge. Hell, I have seen superheroes punch each other silly for dumber reasons than Slapstick's for bashing Gauntlet.
As you said, the question may be what goes of it. Like I also said before, The Mask had some edge to him, and that may be what Slott is going for with Slapstick, who at the time was a rip of The Mask anyway.
Who gives a **** about Slapstick? Honestly. Come on, he's always been a joke and up there with Vibe in the lamest comic book character territory.
Slott could be playing with "the system" of modern comics that he lampooned in GLA to amp up Slapstick a bit. Hopefully he doesn't dive into Penace territory.
