|WikiProject Comedy||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
I thought a slapstick was a device that looks like a blunt instrument that could inflict serious injury, and makes a loud noise when swung, with which one performer appears to be brutally beating another, Three-Stooges style. And that the genre of comedy derives its name from that. Shouldn't that be given as the first definition, before the derived meaning of the word "slapstick" is discussed? -- Mike Hardy
It is. But very few people know that meaning of the word. So most readers will come here looking for the genre. We could move up the origin of the word to the 1st paragraph. -- Tarquin
Article should lead with musical instrument, preferably with illustration (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ludwig_Slapstick.JPG). “Blunt instrument” is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieterpad (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Itchy and Scratchy looks funny down there after the films - it should be with the Tom & Jerry and Roadrunner if anything.
- Actually, why don't I change it myself? Right then...
- done bodnotbod 14:42, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
OK, now I'm unhappy about Lock Stock and Scream being mentioned. Although lock Stock has violence and comedy I wouldn't identify it as illustrative of slapstick. I would be happier pointing at Evil Dead as, and this is nice, director -Sam Raimi - practiced film making by doing his own 3 Stooges homages. This is evident in Evil Dead which has quite a lot of knockabout stuff in it.
But I confess, I'm new to this Wikipedia thing, and I don't have the brass balls to go ahead and change the page, especially as I'm not too familiar with Scream. bodnotbod 17:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
I think we should add a comment about popular "Neo-Slapstick", such as Jackass and similar phenomenoms... (phenomena?)
The idea of "neo-slapstick" for "Jackass", et al, might be a bit problematic. It seems definitional to the idea of slapstick that the violence appreciated by the audience through laughter is understood to be humorous, in part, because of its ultimately harmless nature. For example, we are licensed to laugh at a frying pan in the face because we don't actually believe that one person hit another full-on in the kisser with a hunk of cast iron. The bigger stuff (e.g., having an anvil dropped on one's head) is reserved, for this reason, to cartoon. The problem with the "Jackass" example, to my mind, is that its humor depends upon a style of public censure and laughter almost completely at odds with the traditional understanding of slapstick. Thoughts? --Patchyreynolds 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
I can't see the problem. Interchange a definition resting on our belief in it all being staged with a definition resting on our belief that all action is acted out with the participants full consent. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think visual pun merits an entry of its own, rather than being redirected here, and then glossed over. I say this because I think something should be said about the visual punning in Dutch gable stones, and will illustrate this when I'm next in the right place with a camera. For now I will add a note to pun TobyJ 09:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, especially since visual puns are not discussed here. In fact, I'm not convinced that slapstick has anything to do with visual puns! (More likely, perhaps, the phrase "visual pun" has been used with both meanings, but even then it should be discussed here explicitly). I have created a Stub at Visual pun, using the material on Pun. I hope you add a picture! —Toby Bartels 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Check the bottom of Modern Criticism