So I have not read that many books (and I've liked most of them),but since this thread already expanded to include movies as well, I guess I'll talk about music.
A band that I feel is overrated is The Sex Pistols. Don't get me wrong, I get that they inspired many of the bands that I listen to, and that their rebellious spirit was something that was probably necessary at the time. But the music itself was mediocre, the lead singer's voice is one of the most grating things I have ever heard; and although they had some decent guitar riffs and the drumming was solid, the basslines were practically inaudible.
Lets see... Aliens (just kinda felt lame), Temple of Doom (that kid *dfkhsdhfhjsfg*), Halloween (lets walk around the whole movie and do nothing!), Scarlet Letter (boring), the Giver (depressing, but wins brownie points for actually having counterarguments to its own message), Brave New World (same as the Giver), Macbeth (I hate the protagonist), the Great Gatsby (why is everyone an asshole?), Their Eyes were Watching God (so many problems...), many classic kids shows from Nickalodeon and Cartoon Network (don't seem that great in retrospect, even from a kids point of view I only watched them because the funny shows weren't on), most NES games (they aren't fun anymore and pretty much just play like shitty flash games), Pokemon Red/Blue (unbalanced and buggy), Warcraft 1 (roads and single select), Diablo 1 (IMMA WALK EVYWERE), Final Fantasy 4 (shitty art, shitty characters, and why the fuck does a grind-heavy game make you get rid of your characters frequently? Note that this is the DS version), Como Agua con Chocolate [sic?] (annoying love story BS), Gone with the Wind (I hate the protagonist), Yu Yu Hakusho (well, the later parts of season 3 onwards at least. The series mostly went down in quality every season but the first 2 were good and some of the third was alright), Commander Keen (lives systems are bad), most music (very broad category, ask if you want elaboration on stuff)...
There are more but I can't think of any right now.
I think that's the main reason why you hated them. If you have to do something, it's unlikely that you'll enjoy doing it. If you do it of your own free will, you're more likely to enjoy that particular activity.
And the Shakespeare? Somehow, high school English classes inspire intense hatred for Shakespeare, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why.
Plus To Kill A Mockingbird and Things Fall Apart. How do people dislike To Kill A Mockingbird? I can understand disliking Things Fall Apart, but To Kill A Mockingbird?
I don't hate Shakespeare. In the original post, I did say I enjoyed Hamlet. The other two plays of his that I read, however, weren't quite to my liking. I think high school kids hate Shakespeare because of the way the language works. And most high school kids are too dumb or lazy to bother figuring it out. At least, in my experience.
I will say that the second half of To Kill A Mockingbird was incredibly superior to the first half. But again... it's just not something I can really get into. I, to this day, am not sure why it's a classic.
Paradise Lost
Moby Dick
House of Pancakes Leaves
House of Seven Gables
The Odyssey
...are considered classic. If I can't get into them, if they bore me to tears, you have no hope of changing my views on them. House of Leaves is especially guilty because the whole setup of it is hackneyed at best. No, I'm sorry, but throwing a a few different stories into a paper shredder and then gluing them back together does not a book even make.
I real classic is more universally accepted, not meant to be inaccessable unless you can figure out the sub-sub-sub-subtext and/or stay awake during the chapters in which we explain in Moby Dick how water is wet. And how exactly is it that John Milton wrote about Adam and Eve having sex and MADE IT BORING?! At least The Odyssey's repitition holds fast with the understanding that vocal tales used that as a memory-jumper to keep on task.
Some things are not classic. Hell, some aren't even that good! You have to get on with your lives.
All that being said I gotta take a shot at the kids here who like the prequels more than the original trilogy of Star Wars movies. Really ya'll, effing really!?
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
Please watch these, that you might grow and understand the error of your ways.
The prequels have their many problems, undoubtedly, but if any of those people who nit-pick those movies to the absolute tiniest details would turn such a critical eye to the original trilogy, they would also find numerous lame flaws.
I really don't think the original trilogy has aged well. It has from an audio/visual standpoint, but the characters are incredibly stock, especially in New Hope, and the plot format, the Joseph Campbell-defined one, had been around decades before it popped up, which makes it look even more cliche today. People were mostly wowed by the presentation of these movies, I don't recall many people who were in their mid-20's to 30's when they first saw it remarking on much more that the visuals and music.
Also, if Leia knew the Empire was tracking them from their escape from the Death Star, why did go straight to the rebel base where they could find them and fire a gigantic laser at them?
Furthermore, I never understood why so many people idolize Empire Strikes Back. Empire only got really good once they got to Cloud City. The only other constant piece of quality was Darth Vader, who was at his best in this movie. Other than that, the entire Hoth sequence was slow and predictable, the AT-ATs and AT-STs are top heavy, poorly designed vehicles of war, and I think Han/Leia's dialog is just as lame and poorly written as Anakin/Padme(scruffy looking nerf-herder? Oooooh, what a harsh insult), and their banter has sadly become some sort of high mark in writing couples despite it looking really lazy. Until they get to Cloud City, Han is immature to the point of absolute stupidity, especially in the asteroid field. And why didn't everyone get sucked out into space when the Falcon opened up inside the asteroid worm? They weren't wearing any suits or anything so Han, Leia, Chewie, and C-3PO should have all been dead at that very moment. No more incentive for Luke, Rebels lose, game over. That's what should have happened. Same thing that probably should have happened at the end of Aliens. And how did Luke not die from his fall after learning about his father? Such a large drop, and he's unscathed.
And while Jedi might be a considerable retread of New Hope, I think the main protagonist's actors give their best performances in this movie, and the set pieces are the most consistently entertaining. At least I think so. And the Ewoks never really bothered me. Debris from Death Star II still should have completely wiped out that section of the forest.
Really, I've heard so many rabid Star Wars fans suck on Empire's dick and cover their ears and shout "Lalalala, I'm not listening" whenever anyone tries to bring up flaws in the original trilogy that its left me a bit more bitter to the films than they deserve.
Well I know a guy who refuses to see Looper on the basis of "it looks boring and dumb, plus Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis are shit actors". While you may argue that Looper is not classic literature I beg to differ, it is a modern movie classic that deserves to be seen by everyone. I bet whoever disagrees that in 10+ years high-school teachers will be showing this flm to media classes to write essays on.
I saw that movie. It was definitely very good, but I thought it actually came across as a tad sexist (and I'm not usually the type of person who reads too far into things like that).
Great Expectations. The most boring crap I've ever had to read. Sure its well written but its just incredibly dull. It was very easy to write good essays on though, I'll give it that.
Why the fuck are we studying this film for English? Why? WHY? This film has a completely twisted message, one that makes no sense considering the set-up. Yes, you could argue that revenge is okay and that as long as you take revenge against the people that wronged you it's going to be okay. But this was not the way to do it. This was just stupid. This was an unnecessary compromise. They obviously wanted to tone down the ending but not give the message that you should do revenge so they decided to go fifty-fifty. If they wanted to make a compromise, they shouldn't have antagonized revenge so much throughout the film. Over, and over again people tell him not to do revenge and that it will screw him over. We expect him to be screwed over because hey, why else would you have two to three characters warning him of revenge. But does he still do it? Of course he does! And what convinces him that what he did was wrong? Nothing really. His wife gets shot, she lives. What is that telling the audience? Honestly, unless you think you can really pull it off, having a straight one-way message would be better. A cliched message is better than a weak one.
Ugh, /end of rant.
I'm just really infuriated over the choices of media and literature we study. Hell, they have plans to include Twilight and the Hunger Games in the Senior end of year exams. I'm definitely looking forward to that.
I assume we are studying this film because it's held in high regard. If we're studying it for any reason otherwise, I should have just brought in my DVD of Moon and convince the teacher to make us study that instead.
Probably unknown by most here, but I think Harry Mulisch, recognized by (including himself) many 'authorities' (authors, Dutch teachers, the media, etc.) to be one of the great Dutch authors of all time (generally considered to be part of The Big Three of post-WW2 Dutch literature)...
...but except for De Aanslag ('The Assault'), which is an okay book, and his non-fiction book 'De Zaak 40/61' (his report on the Eichmann trial, very good), his works are completely unreadable.
i dunno if its a Classic, but Enders Game. i had to read it in school and holy shit was a it a boring trainwreck of confusing nonsence to my brain. then again, i really really dont like Sci fi what so ever. being forced to read a book takes the fun out of reading too...
i just couldnt read it so i look up the test answers for the plots and events on the interent.
Fucking HAAAATE The Catcher in The Rye.
The only good thing I can say about it is that it's fairly easy to read, the book isn't too long and it doesn't keep throwing fancy words at you. Everything else on the other hand is just horrible. I've never wanted to punch a protagonist so much in all my life and I've sat through Neon Genesis Evangelion. There is absolutely nothing interesting going on, some **** just bitches and moans from place to place doing nothing, learning nothing and achieving nothing! No conflict, just more bitching!
Also: Akira.
It's Ok...ish but I thought End of Evangelion made a hell of a lot more sense! I seriously had no idea what the fuck was going on!
It's something like a Shakespeare play where I only know what the fuck is going on if I Wikipedia or TvTropes if for a few minutes.
And sense someone mentioned Star Wars *flame shield activate* I find that the prequels are easier to sit through than the originals. Not sure why that is, there's just something about them that's more enjoyable, Darth Vader and mediclorians be damned.
As far as "classics" that I'm not a fan of, I'm going to have to go with The Shining. Many of my cinephile friends rant and rave about this movie, but I think it's the most disjointed, unorganized mess I've ever watched. I DEFINITELY think it's Kubrick's worst film. Yes, I'm including Eyes Wide Shut in that assessment.
Oh God. I have a lot of these. Literally almost every required-reading I've ever done, I disliked.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn The House on Mango Street The Stranger The Giver Romeo and Juliet A Midsummer Night's Dream 1984 To Kill A Mockingbird
Several Edgar Allen Poe stories, including The Raven, The Pit and the Pendulum and The Casque of Amontillado Things Fall Apart Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry
There are more, but those are the only ones I can remember. It's easier to list the ones I did like. Which are Of Mice and Men, Hamlet and The Great Gatsby. Especially Of Mice and Men, to which I have been known to refer as "my personal Bible."
I feel that there are too many there to go into great detail about why I don't like them. The lazy, blanket statement is that they're all powerfully boring. And that seems to be a common statement when you read these in school. There are plenty of not-boring classics. For example, the Divine Comedy or the Odyssey. Or more modern classics, like A Clockwork Orange or I Am Legend. (Some schools even teach John Green's Looking for Alaska!) I don't know about you guys, but wouldn't it be easier to learn from a book if you actually enjoyed it? Not that I'm completely sure of the educational value of any work of fiction.
I could do a few specifics, though. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, the characters might as well have been brain-dead chimps. Honestly. How can people call it romantic? It's stupid is what it is. Nobody, nobody used their head in that play. When it came to The Stranger, I was actually looking forward to some kind of adventure, having read the blurb on the back of the book. What did I get instead? A drawn-out narrative that overstayed its welcome by page three. The main character is the most stereotypically French man I could possibly think of, and the supposed "climax" is so contrived it can never possibly make sense.
The absolute worst offender on that list is The House on Mango Street. This more than any other book would I recommend you never pick up. It's told in a series of only-vaguely-related vignettes, meaning that there's no real plot going on. This makes it nigh-impossible to care about any of the characters, which really puts a damper on the almost-end of the book, where--SPOILERS--the protagonist and narrator is raped. Not that you would necessarily know, as the description of the event is vague at best. I think the worst part is that I honestly can't see where this novella fits into the educational sphere. I sure as hell didn't learn anything from it. Except that I hate it.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I couldn't make it past the second chapter of The Hobbit. Tolkein's writing is just sort of... long. I've not seen any Lord of the Rings films, though my dad adores them. Maybe I should watch that instead.
Some of the books you hated are some of my favorite books of all time. Of Mice and Men, along with The Red Badge of Courage, is part of what I used to call "Classic reading for people who don't like reading". We read Of Mice and Men in our class when I was 12.
I'm willing to bet someone in your class enjoyed the books you hated, so I doubt they picked books everyone would be bored by. Perhaps they should have consulted you when compiling the list, though.
I hate Blade Runner. I'll sit through a slow and contemplative film quite happily (this ***** enjoyed Tree of Life quite recently), and I love me some Sci-Fi, but my fucking god that film bored me to tears.
It's absolutely hideous too in terms of art design. The cityscapes and stuff remain wonderful, but there's something about the set and costume designs that makes me almost nauseous. So fucking eighties it hurts.
lacktheknack said:
Plus To Kill A Mockingbird and Things Fall Apart. How do people dislike To Kill A Mockingbird? I can understand disliking Things Fall Apart, but To Kill A Mockingbird?
I read it for my GCSEs (when I was 15 for the non-Brits) and its one of ma faves. The problem with me, at least, is that as soon as I'm told to read something by someone else and told to do it at their pace, not my own, I lose interest. I suspect it's the same for a lot of people, which leads to the "Shakespeare is shit" reactions. (Probably not the best temperament considering I'm now doing an English Lit degree.)
Not that someone can't legitimately think it's shit - it doesn't exactly get my lady juices flowing either.
I have never liked Akira or The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
As for why...
Well Akira admittedly I watched while working night shifts (on a day off that is) and so my general lack of alertness may have led it to seem more boring than it actually was. I just didn't find it engaging. I didn't care about the characters or what was going on, I didn't like the animation and just generally found it dull.
I should probably give it another shot though.
Rocky Horror is easier. I just disliked it's style, acting, aesthetic appearance and it's non-existent plot. It's supposed to be strange yes, and I like strange, but it wasn't interesting at all.
Woodsey said:
I read it for my GCSEs (when I was 15 for the non-Brits) and its one of ma faves. The problem with me, at least, is that as soon as I'm told to read something by someone else and told to do it at their pace, not my own, I lose interest. I suspect it's the same for a lot of people, which leads to the "Shakespeare is shit" reactions.
It doesn't help either that you are often forced to read the same parts repeatedly in order to discuss it, as well as over anaylyse stupid little things just to show an exam board you are capable of looking at things from another perspective.
I have always loved reading, but I despised English in education for this.
I am so glad I found a fellow LotR-bored person. I thought they were so much better as movies than books. Tolkien drags on and on and on and doesn't know how to write a concise plot. Also, they were marketed as *about the Ring*, so why am I reading all this crap about Aragorn's political plot? I don't care about his politics. I care about a couple of short dudes carrying a magic ring to a volcano. That's it. That's what I want to read about. Cut down your plots, man, they are so crammed with filler. Hack it out. Go to a proper writing workshop and slash most of the stuff in those books.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
