Define Cynical Fan Forums

The acting in a theatre production is just as important as the script itself. That's why Shakespeare sucks when read off the page, and even sucks a bit when poorly performed.

Aside from a performing aspect Shakespeare being a literary heavyweight is well deserved I think.

Aside from a performing aspect Shakespeare being a literary heavyweight is well deserved I think.

Oh, for sure. If you look at it the other way, a great cast with a horrid script is going to suck just as much.

Liked:

2001: A Space Odyssey (book) - The book is much better than the film IMO, and explains a lot more about just what the hell happens at the end with all the lights and the space-babby.

Half-Life - Remember when an FPS was just mass waves on enemies coming at you with no obvious plot or character development? No? Well that's because Half-life changed then world of FPS games forever. Can't wait for Black Mesa: Source and a chance to play this again.

War Of The Worlds (book) - A million times better than the films. I love the way then book uses the aliens to examine human nature. HG Wells is a genious.

Disliked:

Catcher In The Rye - Dull, dull, dull book about a whiny arsehole with whom i have absolutely nothing in common. Well written I suppose, but still pretty lame.

Apocalypse Now - NOTHING HAPPENS! Dull film with such mixed messages and hidden subtext that even "Good Morning Vietnam!" pisses on it as a film about the horrors of war. Also, the full cut is like, 4 hours long....

Halo: Combat Evolved - Fun multiplayer alone does not a good game make. The story was wank wheras the backstory (which is really good) is barely mentioned. Honestly, without looking up on the internet I wouldn't have even known WHO the Covenant were or WHY they're attacking humanity other than "just 'cause".

The Office (UK) - Just too cringeworthy to watch. Plus, I hate Ricky Gervais.

Meh:

The Harry Potter Series - Dunno if this is considered a "classic" yet, but it probably will be soon...nice ideas, decent enough storyline....written in such a childish style that I literally couldn't read past the second part of the second book.

Queen - I dunno, I guess I just don't "get" Queen. I massivly respect them for their talent, but every time I hear their cleaner than clean music it makes me wince.

Star Wars - The entire franchise. I used to love this crap, but now it all looks hackneyed and childish. A goodguy called "Skywalker" and a baddie called "Vader"? Honestly, they might as well have been called Johnny Goodlegs and Adolph Childkiller for all the difference it'd have made. The story is shyte, the acting for the most part hilarious. That said, it's entertaining in a sort of "Dodgeball: a True Underdog Story" kinda way.

Star Wars - The entire franchise. I used to love this crap, but now it all looks hackneyed and childish. A goodguy called "Skywalker" and a baddie called "Vader"? Honestly, they might as well have been called Johnny Goodlegs and Adolph Childkiller for all the difference it'd have made. The story is shyte, the acting for the most part hilarious. That said, it's entertaining in a sort of "Dodgeball: a True Underdog Story" kinda way.

That's how I've always felt about Star Wars.

But, man, Apocalypse Now?
Apocalypse Now wasn't so much about war as insanity and dark nature, the kind both Kurtz the ivory trader and Kurtz the renegade Colonel had, so I don't even really count it as a war film. Some people find it dull, but then Heart of Darkness is also my favourite book.

I was a tyke when Star Wars came out and I loved it then. I saw and was excited by the original movie, though I saw no sequels until the Phantom Menace many years later-which had an exciting beginning but I got bored later on.

Star Wars was, is, and will always be badass.

To Kill A Mockingbird was alright. The movie was better. I really liked the second half, but the first half, which tries to establish itself as just kids being innocent and doing stupid stuff, kinda falls flat on its face.

Animal Farm was kind of a dumb metaphor, but a good story. Napoleon was a total dick...I like that.

The Bible was entertaining, but the sequel was lousy.

Invisible Man was the biggest piece of shit I've ever read. Preachy, hackneyed, pretentious, boring and completely uninteresting. Why does it get so much praise? I don't know. Maybe it was quite a classic back in the day, but now it's just lame.

The Giver was a good story ruined by very bland writing. Hated it.

The Grapes Of Wrath was pretty good. Great story embellished with the signature Steinbeck style. I love that guy.

Lord Of The Rings worked better as movies. The books, while still good, are just a little boring and too long. I can understand the classic status, but I don't really think they hold up all that well.

A Clockwork Orange was AWESOME. I don't care to go into any further detail than that. Movie was good too.

I'm the opposite with The Lord of the Rings. I thought it was too long and boring for a movie but worked out great as a series of books. Its funny how we have the same complaints but for the opposite form of media

I managed the first book of The Lord of the Rings but the second one was so unthinkably dull that I only managed to get halfway through. The Hobbit was far better in my opinion.

Invisible Man was the biggest piece of shit I've ever read. Preachy, hackneyed, pretentious, boring and completely uninteresting. Why does it get so much praise? I don't know. Maybe it was quite a classic back in the day, but now it's just lame.

While I havn't read The Invisible Man since 4th grade (quite frankly I just read it for the story, I was too young), I understand why its considered a classic. I never call old books "hackneyed" because they set the precedent for what is hackneyed. Something has to be original before it can be cliche. Its like saying "The Lord of the Rings is awful because its just like The Sword of Shanarra, I mean Tolkien ripped off those elves and dwarves right from Terry Brooks." . Or thats like saying, "God, I couldn't stand Dracula. This whole vampire fad is getting old."
Also I just generally disdain comments about a thought provoking book as being "pretentious". Can't people provide any other commentary? I mean "pretentious" is getting hackneyed.

The Giver was a good story ruined by very bland writing. Hated it.

I had to read this for 7th grade English. I liked the story better than I let on, but it screamed, "I understand your adolescent feelings of lust! They're normal, trust me, I've added conflict to the story to make it interesting. The protagonist is a strong individual, fighting against conformity. You like fighting against, quote, 'The Man', end quote. You're SUPPOSED to like it." In other words, I found it lacking in originality without anything amazing to really show for it. Just another allegorical tale about the trials of coming adulthood and that sometimes its not always good to stick with the flock.

Lord Of The Rings worked better as movies. The books, while still good, are just a little boring and too long. I can understand the classic status, but I don't really think they hold up all that well.

Meh, I like them, I thought Jackson did an excellent job with the movies. I'd also like to see the one Bakshi did, the cartoon, again. Too bad he couldn't get the money to finish the other half of the story, the animation is excellent. However, I recognize they aren't for everyone. They are rather dry and you tend to outgrow even epic fantasy after a while. I find myself steadily disenchanted on others, although I do enjoy David Eddings.

One playwright who disliked Shakespeare was George Bernard Shaw. I mentioned this on another forum and several people responded that they didn't think much of Shaw (though not necessarily because they were Shakespeare fanatics).

As for Shaw, I happened to read his play The Devil's Disciple for school, as well as Pygmalion, which was the basis of the musical My Fair Lady. The teacher said that in Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw decided that the original ending of Higgins marrying Elizabeth was not going to work, so he ended up changing the ending where she marries Freddy-and the teacher said that that didn't work either. As for The Devil's Disciple, I saw the 1959 movie, which I rather disliked because they didn't get it right, particularly the characterization of Richard Dudgeon.

I always heard how epic the scope of the story in Star Wars is, but I never got that. Do they mean it in an intergalactic sense or how the computer graphics helped to make that possible. It's not an amazing story in my opinion.

Also I didn't much like The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

One playwright who disliked Shakespeare was George Bernard Shaw. I mentioned this on another forum and several people responded that they didn't think much of Shaw (though not necessarily because they were Shakespeare fanatics).

Not surprising. Shaw championed realism in literature and said that English drama should learn to move on from Shakespeare.

Also I didn't much like The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

If you mean the novels, they were mildly amusing. Admittedly there are a lot of other science fiction satires that are funny but are much less famous.

Also I didn't much like The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Shock! I absolutely adored the novels, and the radio series (which I listened to afterwards). Douglas Adams has an excellent, quietly amusing writing style and is one of those authors who manages to be consistently humorous without being overblown. The Dirk Gently novels, though not quite earning 'classic' status, were also very good.

Monty Python's Flying Circus was a show that was often funny, but often was bad as well. Admittedly what made the show work (when it did) was the great acting by the performers, and how they were able to keep everything straight-e. g. making the silly walks without giggling.

Probably the most underrated sequence in the show was with the man on the beach who kept trying to take off his trousers (to change into his bathing suit) without being seen, but being caught every time anyway.