> To be honest with you, it sounds to me like you guys are constructing elaborate systems of rules to justify declaring your opinions as objective truth.

Not at all. One, my mini dissertation on the self-awareness of humor was a concept I'd observed and established to myself in my own mind long before I ever saw Rocky Horror.

Two, I'm not really trying to make any claims about objective truth. I do try -- *try* -- to be careful in my writing to distinguish between "this movie sucks" and "I hated this movie." Because there's a difference, sometimes, between what I think is good and what I merely like. Usually those opinions coincide, but two examples where they don't: "Raging Bull" is a great movie that I don't like. The 1967 "Casino Royale" is a terrible movie that I do like.

BUT...I also acknowledge that *both* sides of those opinions are subjective. People can indulge the irrationality of their personal tastes, or they can "try" to be more objective and recognize merit apart from the irrationality of their own tastes.

With Rocky Horror, I honestly can't remember if I was trying to argue with you that Rocky Horror is objectively bad, or merely state that I hate it and explain why.

Nonetheless, not only do I hate Rocky Horror, but I honestly believe it to be meritless apart from my own tastes. I might be wrong. But my sincere belief is that people who like it do not like it out of any merit in the film itself but because of an irrational quirk in their own tastes. There's nothing wrong with that. I certainly never suggested there was. Just don't expect me to accord the movie the respect you think it deserves.

Everything else in the opening paragraphs of your post I agree with.

> See, this is way too broad to be sensible. I can think of several films that are bad, are *aware* of their badness, and are entertaining nonetheless. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are probably the classic examples in this field...

Yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions, and I don't necessarily know how to account for all of them. Army of Darkness is one I have to acknowledge, as you say, although I wasn't thrilled with it. I *did* like Evil Dead II, but, you know, although it was trying to be campy badness, I think the reason it works is the *character* of Ash doesn't really ham it up very much in that one. In the great "hand" scene, which makes the movie for me all by itself, Bruce Campbell plays the scene basically straight, acting as a normal, unaware person would if all those things were happening to him, or at least how we might imagine someone would.

The characters in Rocky Horror, however, not only ham it up, they behave in ways that aren't even recognizably human even accounting for exaggeration and camera mugging. That's much of why I hated it. It's just people doing stupid random crap.

> What if we replace Rob Schneider with Jerry Lewis? Lewis in his stage persona is obviously aware of his own nerdy strangeness in exactly the way that Keaton is not.

Obviously Lewis, the actor, knew what he was doing, but I submit that Lewis, the character, was *not*. His movies, in stark contrast to how they're sometimes remembered, are typically about misfit nerds that, sure, behave in funny ways, but not on purpose. It's just how they are.