> > Ok, it's time for you to understand something. Rocky Horror is *terrible*. I don't think I've actually seen a more torturous movie in my life. Just because a few stoners invented a group participation routine for it doesn't make it good.
>
> Explain to me why Sinbad is great and Rocky Horror is terrible, please. . . . I suspect the reason why you hate Rocky Horror so much is somewhat because its more gratuitous nature offends you personally.

Stephen nailed it in his own reply. Rocky Horror is self-aware. It is trying to be bad. It succeeds. Big deal. What's funny about Sinbad is that it seems so earnest in striving to be a great, rousing action adventure fantasy and fails so miserably. It's like laughing at a guy who trips over something and falls down. Not highbrow comedy, by any means, but it's funnier than a guy who says "Watch me!" and pretends to fall down.

The same concept applies to a lot of different things. Animals are funny because they don't know they're funny. They don't even suspect it. Once one of my dogs went to sleep with her nose wedged into a shoe. We laughed, and the dog woke up and looked up at us, without moving her head, as if wondering what the heck we were cracking up for, and that just made us laugh harder. But it's only funny because the dog wasn't in on the joke.

Kids are funny in the same way. Circus clowns are not funny. Buster Keaton is funny. Rob Schneider is not funny. Those wacky morning radio DJ's that honk horns and buzzers and stuff after every sentence...definitely not funny.

Rocky Horror is the cinematic equivalent of one of those DJ's, or a clown. It knows it's not good, but it's trying to get a laugh anyway. Obviously you know me and that I don't care for the gratuitous nature of some of the movie's content, but that's not the primary reason for my opinion of it -- I couldn't even begin to name all the movies that are more sensationalistic but which I like more.