Unpopular Geek Media Opinions

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay here's one: When Kaladin decides not to do a legit slave revolt because his vile, wretched bootlicker of a Spren emotionally blackmails and gaslights him into not doing it, because she's like if Jiminy Cricket was run by corporate HR (and working for Kaladin's slavemaster boss), that's one of the worst moments in fantasy novel history, true anti-catharsis, anti-justice, and it's also when Stormlight turned from "okay this has potential" to just slowly going downhill. Particularly because it's obvious Sanderson thinks he's making some kind of moral point, rather than proving that evil wins because good people do nothing (in this case because they were bullied by an awful trashy fairy).

 

[gnarlygninja]

Jaws randomly being in the theater a few years ago, and then finding a local(ish) theater that shows old movie all the time got me going back to the theater for the first time since I was in high school. For some movies, it really is the only way to see them.

In the spirit of the topic though, I think Deadpool is awful.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the spirit of the topic though, I think Deadpool is awful.

I kind of liked it at the time on a certain level but I feel like Ryan Reynold's schtick is making it retroactively worse every day!

 

[Ryujin]

Yeah. Themed film festivals are great, too. A weekend of noir or some such at a movie house.

The Rio Theatre, in Vancouver, BC, Canada does this sort of things frequently.

(A friend is also involved in their monthly D&D based comedy improv live show, "The Critical Hit Show", that's on the third Wednesday of every month, if memory serves.)

 

[Reynard]

What didn't you care for?

First off, I can kind of see that.

Second off, you must not read much fantasy or science fiction generally, because good god, whilst I think there are legit criticisms of Jurassic Park (and not a few!), I'm not sure even if I hated it I could put in the bottom third of books I've read, let alone the bottom 10%, let alone at the very bottom.

So congratulations on avoid so many bad books! SO MANY!!!! < weeps >

It is so blatantly a movie pitch document expanded intoa novel that I can't take the prose. It's horridly written, even by Chrichton's standards (and he has a couple books I actually enjoyed, in a "read on the plane" kind of way).

On the subject of bad fantasy: I am under no compunction, ever, to put up with a crappy book. I usually give it 50 pages (or 2 hours in an audio format) but beyond that if it is bad, i am done. I do not understand people that finish bad books. Life is short.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I do not understand people that finish bad books. Life is short.

I tend to feel the same way but here's the problem.

Several books that did not seem very promising for like over half their length turned into some of the best I've ever read. In fact my personal favourite book, Imajica, I think if you had a 50-page rule an awful lot of people would drop just little bit before it really caught fire.

There are also book series where like, they have one weak book, then they're back on form. Rivers of London is a prime example, I would argue - and it's had more than one "miss" - in some cases they don't become obvious as a miss until fairly late on (I'm looking at you, Whispers Under Ground). But there are others, deceptively similar where they just sloooooooowwwwwwwlllllllly goooooooo downhiiiiiiiillllllll. Looking at you Stormlight Archive. I should have quit the moment Kaladin was called Kaladin and was kind of acting like a Paladin the moment that goddamn bastard fairy (god I hate that fairy) gaslighted Kaladin into not doing a slave revolt but in the same book they actually managed to flip something so I thought things might improve. Luckily in book 3 the horrible multiple-chapter diversion into "a story it was literally impossible to understand without having read another book trilogy from a different setting entirely" pushed me over the edge.

So I give books a little more rope to hang themselves. The positive result of this is that I am often able to really deeply insult some bad books because I know exactly what is wrong with them in some detail! Silver linings etc.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Looking at you Stormlight Archive. I should have quit the moment Kaladin was called Kaladin and was kind of acting like a Paladin the moment that goddamn bastard fairy (god I hate that fairy) gaslighted Kaladin into not doing a slave revolt but in the same book they actually managed to flip something so I thought things might improve. Luckily in book 3 the horrible multiple-chapter diversion into "a story it was literally impossible to understand without having read another book trilogy from a different setting entirely pushed me over the edge.

LOL. I'm now on Wind & Truth and am thinking Sanderson is falling into the Robert Jordan trap of not having an editor willing to tell him to cut stuff.

 

[Reynard]

I tend to feel the same way but here's the problem.

Several books that did not seem very promising for like over half their length turned into some of the best I've ever read. In fact my personal favourite book, Imajica, I think if you had a 50-page rule an awful lot of people would drop just little bit before it really caught fire.

There are also book series where like, they have one weak book, then they're back on form. Rivers of London is a prime example, I would argue - and it's had more than one "miss" - in some cases they don't become obvious as a miss until fairly late on (I'm looking at you, Whispers Under Ground). But there are others, deceptively similar where they just sloooooooowwwwwwwlllllllly goooooooo downhiiiiiiiillllllll. Looking at you Stormlight Archive. I should have quit the moment Kaladin was called Kaladin and was kind of acting like a Paladin the moment that goddamn bastard fairy (god I hate that fairy) gaslighted Kaladin into not doing a slave revolt but in the same book they actually managed to flip something so I thought things might improve. Luckily in book 3 the horrible multiple-chapter diversion into "a story it was literally impossible to understand without having read another book trilogy from a different setting entirely" pushed me over the edge.

So I give books a little more rope to hang themselves. The positive result of this is that I am often able to really deeply insult some bad books because I know exactly what is wrong with them in some detail! Silver linings etc.

Lol. I gave Stormlight 2.5 books. There were some things I really liked but finally I had had enough of Shalan's whining and pining.

 

[Ryujin]

Several books that did not seem very promising for like over half their length turned into some of the best I've ever read. In fact my personal favourite book, Imajica, I think if you had a 50-page rule an awful lot of people would drop just little bit before it really caught fire.

I read "Imajica", and a couple of his other books, but I just couldn't get into Barker. It just felt like he never got over his adolescent sex fantasies. I have pretty much the same problem with Anne Rice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I read "Imajica", and a couple of his other books, but I just couldn't get into Barker. It just felt like he never got over his adolescent sex fantasies. I have pretty much the same problem with Anne Rice.

I mean, I don't think there's particularly "adolescent" about either author (who are very different too), and I think that might speak a little more to your attitudes re: sex/sexuality in literary works than what's actually written in the books themselves (I'd be fascinated to know what books featuring heavy sexuality you considered to not be that). I mean, you want "stuck in adolescence", just read the sex in most well reviewed mainstream literature (and I do mean actual literature) written between about 1960 and 2010 lol. Especially anything by straight men.