This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cult film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Cult film has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There's significant overlap between this page and Cult following. There should be some rationalisation between the two and/or at least a link. -- Anarchangel23 ( talk) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I flagged the film list on this article as unreferenced because there are currently no citations in that section verifying that the specific films in that list meet a consensus definition of having cult status. At best these films might appear in a list of cult films on one of the external links at the end of the article. Note though that even if a citation to a specific source is provided indicating that something is a cult film, that still leaves open point of view concerns on whether or not a specific film is "cult". It is certainly possible that a film is listed as "cult" on one critic's list, for example, but other critics do not consider it a "cult" film.
The bottom line, though, is that the list included in this article has no footnotes or citations indicating it is drawn from external, verifiable published sources. Dugwiki 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I reinserted this tag as it was removed without comment or correction. Please do not remove the unref tag until references are provided to verify that the listed films are generally considered "cult films" by the film industry. Dugwiki 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I once again had to reinsert the unreferenced tag that was removed without comment and without additional references being added to the article to very the list of films has consensus in the industry as being "cult films". Since the situation hasn't improved, and I don't like the idea of having to keep reinserting this tag, I posted asking for feedback on this section of the article at WP:Films. Eventually what needs to happen is either a) references are added to verify the films have consensus in the industry as having cult status, or b) the section should be deleted as something that is subjective and unreferenced (ie cult status is in the eye of the beholder adding it to the list). I'd recommend giving feedback and comments at that talk page so the discussion remains in one place. Thanks! Dugwiki 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help with citations on the list of cult films? I know a back issue of entertainment weekly had a list of the top 100 cult films of all time, there is also a large book called "Cult FLicks and Trash Pics" that I've read but do not have. This book is an encyclopedia of hundreds of cult films. If someone could track these down and use them for citation that would be great. Most of the films, actors, and directors that were on the lists removed from the article are in there DASA2 2:08, 13 February 2007
Actually, my two cents - the lists should just be removed completely. Maybe eventually one simple list of commonly recognized cult films that fit the more specific definition this article needs could be added. Mondo68 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the afd discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult film actors, I have removed the recently recreated lists for cult films, cult actors and cult directors. Those lists are unverifiable original research and have inherent subjectivity issues (they are basically lists based almost solely on individual editors' opinions on what and who has "cult" status). Please do not recreate or revert those lists without discussing here, and the consensus appeared strong on afd that the lists were inappropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. Thanks. Dugwiki 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
By cleaning up this article and making more straightforward, fact-based, with verifiable sources, creating good cult film, cult actor, and cult director lists will be easier. But first things first, this whole thing needs to be revised
Mondo68 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello
that was really annoying
I really enjoyed browsing through that list
Is there any way for me to get a copy of the list of films that was there? I hadn't finished reading the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 ( talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi If I remember correctly that list was on a separate page something like "list of cult movies" I can't find anything in the history so maybee its in the history for a page that has been deleted If anyone knows anything about what happened to it either the person who wrote the list or the person who deleted it any info would be much appreciated
According to my definition of a cult movie that list was spot on, I've been trying my best to buy, rent and download the films
If someone could copy and paste the list into this discussion page I can do some research and try and find citations and references for the films on the list
thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.139.253 ( talk) 11:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a large collection of books and magazines on the subject of cult movies and would be glad to help provide a more well-defined definition of "cult film" for this article. Mondo68 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of the misconceptions about what "cult film" is derives from the precedent set by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Because it has long beeen held up as a kind of prototypical example of cult, many have assumed that what made it cult was the fact that it attracted an obsessed, participatory audience. Based on that precedent, people have concluded that Star Wars is a cult film. Another aspect of RHPS that a lot of people have latched on to is the repeated viewings. Of course, in the days when RHPS was building its reputation as a cult film, repeated viewings took a lot more effort and dedication than they do today. Tarantino fanboys watch Pulp Fiction over and over, sometimes in groups, and quote lines of dialogue to each other. Because of the similarity of that behavoir to the RHPS precedent, Pulp Fiction is often mis-labeled a cult movie. I would contend that RHPS was an entirely unique phenomenon in the cult movie culture. It made its own rules, and is not especially representative of cult movies as a whole.
To me, a cult movie fan was someone who was first and foremost an avid film fanatic who searched for new and unique cinematic experiences and in the process would champion little known and underapreciated films, not watch the same handful of popular (or even semi-popular) movies over and over again.
Any thoughts?
Mondo68 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of how Rocky Horror Picture Show has often led to the misuse of the term cult film, leading people to believe that it merely means a fanatical devotion and involvement. Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, etc. shouldn't be classified as cult films. The OED defines "cult" as "fringe, non-mainstream" and having "appeal to a relatively small audience". (I have pasted the full definition at the bottom of this discussion page.) Ironically, (IMHO) RHPS long ago lost its status as a cult film once its following became so large. Proclivities ( talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to start REALLY cleaning up this article. Straightforward, fact-based, with references and verifiable sources.
Mondo68 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the article appears to be pretty well written, although I have had to occasionally redelete the "lists of cult actors/directors/films" that were previously removed as being too subjective (the lists are unreferenced and very much a matter of editorial opinion). Most recently they appear to have been readded by an unregistered editor. Dugwiki 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the lists should be removed.
I think the article could be much better. It kind of rambles from point to point and doesn't feel cohesive. Also there are many subjective comments and little (no?) attribution.
Mondo68 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
'Pretty well written'? This is possibly the worst article I've read on Wikipedia, on writing quality alone. It not just rambles - all over - but repeats itself (in the introduction, in various other parts), sometimes contradicts itself ("A cult film can often been widely regarded and had been successful upon its early release") and is full of vague generalizations/hand-waving. It needs to be redone for sure, at least the intro and the general overview. -
76.172.41.63 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
To make it a better reference for a casual visitor, a chart with the name of the movie, the year of release and the MPAA rating would be an excellent resource. 99.225.244.235 ( talk) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is a bit too repetitive. It mentions obsessive followings and initial movie failure a bout 3 times in the first 15 lines. ArdClose ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The main aspect which defines a cult film, to me, is its relative obscurity, as if it were some sort of secret which only a small group of devotees knew about. It is not always that the films failed financially or were just poorly made, sometimes it is issues of distribution.
And Soon the Darkness or the original version of
The Wicker Man are examples of cult films, or even midnight movies, that were just never widely distributed, but developed followings after videos and DVD's became available.
I have pasted one definition of cult from the
Oxford English Dictionary below:
Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence: possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult figure, cult status.
I think that this definition can help clear up what determines whether a particular film a cult film or not. However, as this heading suggests, it still depends on what one's definition is. "The Nightmare Before Christmas" or "Dr. Strangelove" may have cult followings, but IMHO, I do not consider them "cult films", mainly because there appeal is not limited "to a relatively small audience". Proclivities ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Star Wars and Star Trek may have cult followings (a few dedicated members that take it further than normal viewers and get into costumes and attend conventions) but they are not (and never will be) cult movies because they began as commercial successes. A cult film needs to start as a commercial misunderstood flop that is either too complex or too far removed from society to be popular upon release. A relatively small number of dedicated fans need to do to the grassroots evangelism needed to encourage people to give it a second chance on DVD. Esptoronto ( talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Why was this image removed, without warning and without mention in "history"? Karel leermans ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:DonnieDarkoStill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Another example is the place of The Wizard of Oz (1939) in white American homosexual culture, although a widely viewed and historically important film in greater American culture."
Anybody have a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.152.32.92 ( talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to add www.cultreviews.com to the external links section, but apparantly it gets undone every time. Is there anything I'm missing about links? A site that covers Cult Movies is pretty relevant I thought. 81.83.108.30 ( talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the greatest cult film of all time, this movie needs to be mentioned somewhere on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.150.131 ( talk) 07:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd support Repo Man being a cult movie. I also noticed that Big Trouble in Little China is missing. Esptoronto ( talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How about putting Sunset Boulevard as another example of Cult films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.5.12 ( talk) 15:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Rehna Hai tere Dil mein, and Hera Pheri cult films???? Care to justify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinblr ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly editors have put a lot of work into creating this article, but flagrantly and I assume in good faith in violation of many, many Wiki principles too numerous to list here in their entirety. In addition to the clear violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the complete lack of sourcing for the selections of cult films, the unsourced and flat out wrong attribution of term and concept to a single writer in 1980 when both existed as early as the 1940s, and the unintentionally funny but incredibly off-base designation of some of the most influential and debated films of all time (anything by Kubrick, for starters - though there would be a much better case to be made for the relatively less-seen Paths of Glory than for landmark films recognized as such at the time of their release and ever since like A Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey) as cult just cannot remain uncorrected unless they are sourced as such...
...and more carefully sourced than here in the article. The references for both footnotes 1 and 2 do not demonstrate what the article purports that they do, supporting instead the more commonly understood definition of the term cult. Here is what the reference to the Allmovie Guide actually says:
Generally a cult film is one that has minimal popular appeal but has a great following with a select group within the public sphere. This genre generally has a following on college campuses or late night audiences and elicits audience participation in the form of responsorial dialogue, costuming and props. [2]
This is at least oblique to and closer to contradictory to this article's attempt to include A level major studio releases (like Kubrick's) that have generated extensive attention and comment from the time of their release onward.
The AMC filmsite ref reads as follows:
Cult films have limited but very special appeal. Cult films are usually strange, quirky, offbeat, eccentric, oddball, or surreal, with outrageous, weird, unique and cartoony characters or plots, and garish sets. They are often considered controversial because they step outside standard narrative and technical conventions. They can be very stylized, and they are often flawed or unusual in some striking way.
Most cult films cut across many film genres (science fiction, horror, melodrama, etc.), although some film genres are also more prone to being cultish, such as the horror or sci-fi genres. Teen comedies are also more often rated as cult films, such as Dazed and Confused (1993), and Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), with quotable lines of dialogue, and memorable characters and scenes.
Many cult films feature or effectively showcase the performance of newcomers or other unknown talented actors/actresses. These often-obscure and cheesy films are usually made by maverick, highly individualistic film-makers with low-budget resources and little commercial marketing. And cult films are rarely, if ever, sequels, since then they would have attained mainstream appeal and widespread success. Some directors are more prone to making cult films, such as John Waters, Quentin Tarantino and David Lynch, especially early in their careers, because of their individualistic perspective and style, although they can often make a conventional 'mainstream' film too (such as David Lynch's The Straight Story (1999)). [3]
Many of the films on the list in the lede that I reverted fall in no way under either of these rubrics.
Much, much more needs to be done with this article, some of it correcting errors of fact as above and more of it having to establish an agreed-upon rubric for what does (and equally importantly does not) constitute a cult film. So....more to come. Sensei48 ( talk) 05:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is Caddyshack!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 ( talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fight Club not only has a cult but it has a militia, it deserves a mention in the section about the newer flicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.178.145 ( talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Cult film is clearly WP:Notable. User:Piano non troppo claims "The issue is that the allmovie reference provided defines term in such a way that's it's impossible to identify what is and what is not 'cult'". Many notable things are not completely unambiguous. For example, cult itself is not precisely defined, some people believe that the Falun Gong is a cult, some do not. Yet the idea of a cult is clearly notable. The reason is that there are many things we can say about "cult-like behavior". Likewise cult film is clearly notable because there are many things that we can say about cult films, they often have poor reception in theaters and then become spectacularly popular over time gaining a following that is often irrational about there love of the movie, cult-like, etc. For those who like to ref the WP:MOS, this topic has significant coverage in WP:Reliable Sources. Cheers, — sligocki ( talk) 02:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of this article includes truly epic awkwardnesses of phrasing and logic. At the very least, the plethora of weasely passive voice constructions (e.g., "was championed by a small number of dedicated film fanatics who seek out lesser-known offerings," "the film was given a cult status," "film has since received cult status" - many more similarly tortured constructions. Sensei48 ( talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to suggest a movie to add to the article.... don't. Provide a citation from a reliable source that describes it as a cult film (by the definition agreed to for this article), find an appropriate place where it fits the narrative of the article, and add it there. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is a typical example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. There's nothing but negative remarks. This is a typical example of the difference between an encylopedic definition entry and an attempt at an essay. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not a cult movie, it is a midnight movie. I can only think of a couple of examples of cult movies, Electra Glide in Blue and Buckaroo Banzai. Ncsr11 ( talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I take issue with the descriptions of Blade Runner and Blue Velvet as "cult films" in some permanent sense. These were certainly "cult films" for several years after they were issued, not having done great box office, but with a strong fanbase that helped popularize these films. But after a decade or so, both of these films had attained the status of classics (and not just "cult classics"), routinely cited on critic's lists of top films, and in the case of Blade Runner, chosen by the Library of Congress for the National Film Registry. I think at that point, films with that level of success cease to be "cult films". Peter G Werner ( talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Are The Chronicles of Narnia films considered cult films, or are they too popular?-- 72.47.89.12 ( talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You've only been saying "this needs work" for about six years, by my estimate, and most of the responses on this talk page indicate that the bulk of the "editors" think that means, "Needs more fancruft." This has degenerated into a collection of poorly constructed sentences and fragments that convey little in the way of concrete information about the subject. It is largely a crufty example farm. The only useful information appears in the intro paragraph, and this same info with little elaboration is repeated ad infinitum throughout.
If this wasn't a useful subject for an article, I'd suggest AfD.
It needs to be gutted. Find an expert on the subject, and start over from scratch. Then lock the page before the fanbois arrive to crap it up again. 12.233.146.130 ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I just rewrote the intro for List of cult films, since that article had been tagged with original research for over a year. If we expand that, I think we can use it here, too. The advantage is that it's rather highly referenced, avoiding original research. The disadvantages are that it's a bit unwieldy, with all those references; it's a bit short; and it doesn't really explain things as well as the current definition. However, I think it shouldn't be impossible to make it work. For reference, this is what I wrote:
A cult film, also commonly referred to as a cult classic, is a movie with a cult following, obscure or unpopular with mainstream audiences, and often revolutionary or ironically enjoyed. [1] [2] Sometimes, the definition is expanded to exclude films that have been released by major studios or have big budgets, [3] try specifically to become cult films, [4] or become accepted by mainstream audiences and critics. [5] Cult movies are defined as much by audience reaction as they are content. [6]
Here are the references:
Any ideas on how we can expand on this, so that it's not so short? Ideas on how to define what is and isn't a cult film? After this, I figure we can move on to pruning the comprehensive list of cult movies from this article, since we've already got List of cult films. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions about major topics that the article is missing? There are still a few topics that I'd like to cover, but I think the basic skeleton is there. I touched on the various controversies over the definition of a cult film, and I think that section can be expanded quite a lot, given how vocal and opinionated some people are. Whether a cult film can lose its status deserves its own section, in my opinion. Blade Runner seems a good example, but there are many others. Also, I think the influence of 70s exploitation should perhaps be expanded. I've found some feminist essays critical of transgressive exploitation in cult films, which I think might be topical. Finally, I've been meaning to discuss non-American films, but I just haven't gotten around to it, yet. There's lots of information out there on Asian, European, and Australian cult films, but I'm not sure where to put it: should they have their own sections or should it be integrated?
There's lots of stuff to talk about, but I'm never quite sure how much to say, and how much of it is relevant. I've found some interesting sources on Google Books, and I intend on browsing through them for interesting quotations. If they intrigue me enough, I might try to find them locally. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I went from big paragraphs to smaller paragraphs... and then went back to big paragraphs. I think I'm satisfied with big paragraphs. Small paragraphs just look too choppy. I've been studying B movie, and they seem to have standardized in big, beefy paragraphs, with occasional smaller ones. If it's good enough for a Featured article, then it's good enough for me. I've also been thinking about adding a sidebar – not just because B movie has one, but because I think it might be helpful. However, I'm not sure how useful it would be, given cult film, cult video game, and cult following are rather niche topics, and most of them already link to each other rather prominently. Still, it might be something to think about, especially if other cult topics (such as cult TV shows) were ever added. Besides that, I think the article is starting to need copy editing more than it needs more information. Still, I think there's a lot of room for expansion, if I can get my hands on some more academic sources. The problem is that I don't want to turn this article into some kind of dry, academic treatise that's only understandable after getting a college degree. I'll see about trying to the library or bookstore this weekend. I've been meaning to grab a few promising sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
First off, I would like to congratulate User:NinjaRobotPirate for completely turning around this article. It is intelligently written and has wide coverage of the topic, so I have absolutely no issues about assessing it as B-class article.
However, I have one suggestion and one criticism as an editor. I think Cult film#Mainstream popularity would work better as the final chapter of the article: the transgression and fandom chapters are essentially discussing the form and characteristics of cult films, whereas the mainstream popularity section basically discusses the mainstream appropriation of cult film and the manufacturing of the cult phenomenon; it would work better as a conclusion to the article IMO, but this is just a suggestion not a request. As for the criticism, I find the "camp classics" chapter rather weak in relation to the other sections. Unlike the other sections which are tightly written and engaging and cut to the chase, I find this chapter to be a bit "waffly" and adopting more of an essay style tone, and it doesn't seem to add a whole lot to the understanding of the topic. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've got a few questions and issues about this new section:
An editor has recently been determined to insert coverage of The Thief and the Cobbler at this article (see [4], [5], [6]). There are two problems I have with the recent edits:
Basically it appears like POV pushing to me. I have reverted the editor once so I would like some further opinions before doing so again. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a little while now, and I think the article is close to ready for good article nomination. Here are the remaining issues:
I haven't been too chatty on the talk page lately, but that's partly because whenever I start to write a message like this, I think to myself, "Why are you discussing this? Just be bold and make the edit." However, I think these issues may need actual discussion. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article
anime fandom deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage.
The lad searches the night for his newts (
talk) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The rest of the GA review attempts by The lad searches the night for his newts have long since been closed, as they weren't being based on standard GA criteria. As Mark Miller feels he shouldn't take over this review, the nomination has been returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention from a competent reviewer. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Freikorp ( talk · contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Due to the size of this article, I expect my review will not be complete for several days. Freikorp ( talk) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I've passed the article now, well done. Freikorp ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cult film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://localbiz.carrollcountytimes.com/community_times/blogs/goodbadtaste/good-bad-taste-rocky-horror-picture-show-and-the-so/article_58a28700-b2fe-50bf-9890-8429a2c6a9a5.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cult film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
is there a more simpler understanding on what makes a movie a cult classic? the term can be hard to define but how do you know for sure on what makes a movie a cult classic? I'm someone with autism and need help with understanding it a bit better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:600C:B600:9CA9:D2D6:E5C6:CFB7 ( talk) 06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
is there something that tells you what audiences generally thought of a film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:600C:B600:CC06:C779:9D1:BEA0 ( talk) 09:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
(Copied from what I said at Talk:Cult following a while ago so more see it).
If you look at basically any article about an obscure, badly-received movie (e.g. most of what Mystery Science Theater has), Wikipedia will say “this film has gained a cult following”.
This is dumb. It really doesn’t mean anything—you could probably say this about any movie if you look hard enough at the vast expanse of the Internet. In most cases, that a movie or other work has a “cult following” is meaningless, or at least not notable. DemonDays64 ( talk) 01:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cult moive. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
A Cult Film article with no mention of Bruce Robinson's 'Withnail And I' one of the quintessential examples of a cult film?
I think this is a very well-done article. I am a fan of many of the varieties of cult films but I object to the label being applied to every film that does more business after theatrical release than it did during. (F'rinstance... I love Hocus Pocus... but in my opinion (for what little that's worth) it isn't a cult film -- it's a mainstream movie that didn't achieve commercial success until TV broadcasts and home video.) This article approaches the issue very effectively -- particularly in that it presents descriptions of a variety of routes that a film may take on its way to cult status. Kudos!!! PurpleChez ( talk) 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Article is way too long for a simple film genre. Especially since much of the content is unsourced. If there are any issues feel free to reply. Triosdeity ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
How is this considered a good article? The tone of the article is incredibly unprofessional, the information in sections such as “art and exploitation” is dubious at best (with original research and awful formatting of the points). The article needs serious work and reevaluation the overall delivery 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:4EE:E21F:8554:DF50 ( talk) 02:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
A lot of how this article defines what is and what isn't cult certain around conditions and assumptions that could only exist prior to the Internet. Is something still cult if anyone with a computer can now watch it? So many movies that were once impossible to find if you didn't live in a big city are now easily available. How are box-office bombs measured these days when so much content was never intended for the big screen in the first place? Streaming services, like Netflix or Amazon Prime, give what probably would be considered cult shows a new season and suddenly the whole world is watching. Have the rules changed and if so what's the measuring stick being used? Xenomorph erotica ( talk) 23:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding " Academic Xavier Mendik also defines cult films as ..." I have read the interview and I am afraid that our article too liberally reinterpreted what he actually said. In particular I didnt find where he "defines cult films as opposing the mainstream". And other parts of the blurb in question. - Altenmann >talk 01:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
... creativity does in fact lie beyond the mainstream ... And because they’re not constrained by the mainstream, their productions can be far more creative and challenging and often far more political." Perhaps that was it. If so, it could be clarified better. The rest of it is right there, though: "
There are movies that are ‘cult’ by virtue of the genre" and "
... what tends to happen is when society feels stable and comfortable the horror tends to be very joky and unthreatening ... Right now we’re in such a profound period of instability both in the UK and the US, it’s producing great movies."NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The lede is waaaaaaay too long. WP:LEDE: A lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an essay in itself. - Altenmann >talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cult film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Cult film has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There's significant overlap between this page and Cult following. There should be some rationalisation between the two and/or at least a link. -- Anarchangel23 ( talk) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I flagged the film list on this article as unreferenced because there are currently no citations in that section verifying that the specific films in that list meet a consensus definition of having cult status. At best these films might appear in a list of cult films on one of the external links at the end of the article. Note though that even if a citation to a specific source is provided indicating that something is a cult film, that still leaves open point of view concerns on whether or not a specific film is "cult". It is certainly possible that a film is listed as "cult" on one critic's list, for example, but other critics do not consider it a "cult" film.
The bottom line, though, is that the list included in this article has no footnotes or citations indicating it is drawn from external, verifiable published sources. Dugwiki 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I reinserted this tag as it was removed without comment or correction. Please do not remove the unref tag until references are provided to verify that the listed films are generally considered "cult films" by the film industry. Dugwiki 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I once again had to reinsert the unreferenced tag that was removed without comment and without additional references being added to the article to very the list of films has consensus in the industry as being "cult films". Since the situation hasn't improved, and I don't like the idea of having to keep reinserting this tag, I posted asking for feedback on this section of the article at WP:Films. Eventually what needs to happen is either a) references are added to verify the films have consensus in the industry as having cult status, or b) the section should be deleted as something that is subjective and unreferenced (ie cult status is in the eye of the beholder adding it to the list). I'd recommend giving feedback and comments at that talk page so the discussion remains in one place. Thanks! Dugwiki 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help with citations on the list of cult films? I know a back issue of entertainment weekly had a list of the top 100 cult films of all time, there is also a large book called "Cult FLicks and Trash Pics" that I've read but do not have. This book is an encyclopedia of hundreds of cult films. If someone could track these down and use them for citation that would be great. Most of the films, actors, and directors that were on the lists removed from the article are in there DASA2 2:08, 13 February 2007
Actually, my two cents - the lists should just be removed completely. Maybe eventually one simple list of commonly recognized cult films that fit the more specific definition this article needs could be added. Mondo68 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the afd discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult film actors, I have removed the recently recreated lists for cult films, cult actors and cult directors. Those lists are unverifiable original research and have inherent subjectivity issues (they are basically lists based almost solely on individual editors' opinions on what and who has "cult" status). Please do not recreate or revert those lists without discussing here, and the consensus appeared strong on afd that the lists were inappropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. Thanks. Dugwiki 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
By cleaning up this article and making more straightforward, fact-based, with verifiable sources, creating good cult film, cult actor, and cult director lists will be easier. But first things first, this whole thing needs to be revised
Mondo68 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello
that was really annoying
I really enjoyed browsing through that list
Is there any way for me to get a copy of the list of films that was there? I hadn't finished reading the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 ( talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi If I remember correctly that list was on a separate page something like "list of cult movies" I can't find anything in the history so maybee its in the history for a page that has been deleted If anyone knows anything about what happened to it either the person who wrote the list or the person who deleted it any info would be much appreciated
According to my definition of a cult movie that list was spot on, I've been trying my best to buy, rent and download the films
If someone could copy and paste the list into this discussion page I can do some research and try and find citations and references for the films on the list
thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.139.253 ( talk) 11:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a large collection of books and magazines on the subject of cult movies and would be glad to help provide a more well-defined definition of "cult film" for this article. Mondo68 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of the misconceptions about what "cult film" is derives from the precedent set by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Because it has long beeen held up as a kind of prototypical example of cult, many have assumed that what made it cult was the fact that it attracted an obsessed, participatory audience. Based on that precedent, people have concluded that Star Wars is a cult film. Another aspect of RHPS that a lot of people have latched on to is the repeated viewings. Of course, in the days when RHPS was building its reputation as a cult film, repeated viewings took a lot more effort and dedication than they do today. Tarantino fanboys watch Pulp Fiction over and over, sometimes in groups, and quote lines of dialogue to each other. Because of the similarity of that behavoir to the RHPS precedent, Pulp Fiction is often mis-labeled a cult movie. I would contend that RHPS was an entirely unique phenomenon in the cult movie culture. It made its own rules, and is not especially representative of cult movies as a whole.
To me, a cult movie fan was someone who was first and foremost an avid film fanatic who searched for new and unique cinematic experiences and in the process would champion little known and underapreciated films, not watch the same handful of popular (or even semi-popular) movies over and over again.
Any thoughts?
Mondo68 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of how Rocky Horror Picture Show has often led to the misuse of the term cult film, leading people to believe that it merely means a fanatical devotion and involvement. Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, etc. shouldn't be classified as cult films. The OED defines "cult" as "fringe, non-mainstream" and having "appeal to a relatively small audience". (I have pasted the full definition at the bottom of this discussion page.) Ironically, (IMHO) RHPS long ago lost its status as a cult film once its following became so large. Proclivities ( talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to start REALLY cleaning up this article. Straightforward, fact-based, with references and verifiable sources.
Mondo68 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the article appears to be pretty well written, although I have had to occasionally redelete the "lists of cult actors/directors/films" that were previously removed as being too subjective (the lists are unreferenced and very much a matter of editorial opinion). Most recently they appear to have been readded by an unregistered editor. Dugwiki 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the lists should be removed.
I think the article could be much better. It kind of rambles from point to point and doesn't feel cohesive. Also there are many subjective comments and little (no?) attribution.
Mondo68 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
'Pretty well written'? This is possibly the worst article I've read on Wikipedia, on writing quality alone. It not just rambles - all over - but repeats itself (in the introduction, in various other parts), sometimes contradicts itself ("A cult film can often been widely regarded and had been successful upon its early release") and is full of vague generalizations/hand-waving. It needs to be redone for sure, at least the intro and the general overview. -
76.172.41.63 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
To make it a better reference for a casual visitor, a chart with the name of the movie, the year of release and the MPAA rating would be an excellent resource. 99.225.244.235 ( talk) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is a bit too repetitive. It mentions obsessive followings and initial movie failure a bout 3 times in the first 15 lines. ArdClose ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The main aspect which defines a cult film, to me, is its relative obscurity, as if it were some sort of secret which only a small group of devotees knew about. It is not always that the films failed financially or were just poorly made, sometimes it is issues of distribution.
And Soon the Darkness or the original version of
The Wicker Man are examples of cult films, or even midnight movies, that were just never widely distributed, but developed followings after videos and DVD's became available.
I have pasted one definition of cult from the
Oxford English Dictionary below:
Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence: possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult figure, cult status.
I think that this definition can help clear up what determines whether a particular film a cult film or not. However, as this heading suggests, it still depends on what one's definition is. "The Nightmare Before Christmas" or "Dr. Strangelove" may have cult followings, but IMHO, I do not consider them "cult films", mainly because there appeal is not limited "to a relatively small audience". Proclivities ( talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Star Wars and Star Trek may have cult followings (a few dedicated members that take it further than normal viewers and get into costumes and attend conventions) but they are not (and never will be) cult movies because they began as commercial successes. A cult film needs to start as a commercial misunderstood flop that is either too complex or too far removed from society to be popular upon release. A relatively small number of dedicated fans need to do to the grassroots evangelism needed to encourage people to give it a second chance on DVD. Esptoronto ( talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Why was this image removed, without warning and without mention in "history"? Karel leermans ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:DonnieDarkoStill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Another example is the place of The Wizard of Oz (1939) in white American homosexual culture, although a widely viewed and historically important film in greater American culture."
Anybody have a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.152.32.92 ( talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to add www.cultreviews.com to the external links section, but apparantly it gets undone every time. Is there anything I'm missing about links? A site that covers Cult Movies is pretty relevant I thought. 81.83.108.30 ( talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the greatest cult film of all time, this movie needs to be mentioned somewhere on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.150.131 ( talk) 07:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd support Repo Man being a cult movie. I also noticed that Big Trouble in Little China is missing. Esptoronto ( talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How about putting Sunset Boulevard as another example of Cult films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.5.12 ( talk) 15:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Rehna Hai tere Dil mein, and Hera Pheri cult films???? Care to justify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinblr ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly editors have put a lot of work into creating this article, but flagrantly and I assume in good faith in violation of many, many Wiki principles too numerous to list here in their entirety. In addition to the clear violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the complete lack of sourcing for the selections of cult films, the unsourced and flat out wrong attribution of term and concept to a single writer in 1980 when both existed as early as the 1940s, and the unintentionally funny but incredibly off-base designation of some of the most influential and debated films of all time (anything by Kubrick, for starters - though there would be a much better case to be made for the relatively less-seen Paths of Glory than for landmark films recognized as such at the time of their release and ever since like A Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey) as cult just cannot remain uncorrected unless they are sourced as such...
...and more carefully sourced than here in the article. The references for both footnotes 1 and 2 do not demonstrate what the article purports that they do, supporting instead the more commonly understood definition of the term cult. Here is what the reference to the Allmovie Guide actually says:
Generally a cult film is one that has minimal popular appeal but has a great following with a select group within the public sphere. This genre generally has a following on college campuses or late night audiences and elicits audience participation in the form of responsorial dialogue, costuming and props. [2]
This is at least oblique to and closer to contradictory to this article's attempt to include A level major studio releases (like Kubrick's) that have generated extensive attention and comment from the time of their release onward.
The AMC filmsite ref reads as follows:
Cult films have limited but very special appeal. Cult films are usually strange, quirky, offbeat, eccentric, oddball, or surreal, with outrageous, weird, unique and cartoony characters or plots, and garish sets. They are often considered controversial because they step outside standard narrative and technical conventions. They can be very stylized, and they are often flawed or unusual in some striking way.
Most cult films cut across many film genres (science fiction, horror, melodrama, etc.), although some film genres are also more prone to being cultish, such as the horror or sci-fi genres. Teen comedies are also more often rated as cult films, such as Dazed and Confused (1993), and Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), with quotable lines of dialogue, and memorable characters and scenes.
Many cult films feature or effectively showcase the performance of newcomers or other unknown talented actors/actresses. These often-obscure and cheesy films are usually made by maverick, highly individualistic film-makers with low-budget resources and little commercial marketing. And cult films are rarely, if ever, sequels, since then they would have attained mainstream appeal and widespread success. Some directors are more prone to making cult films, such as John Waters, Quentin Tarantino and David Lynch, especially early in their careers, because of their individualistic perspective and style, although they can often make a conventional 'mainstream' film too (such as David Lynch's The Straight Story (1999)). [3]
Many of the films on the list in the lede that I reverted fall in no way under either of these rubrics.
Much, much more needs to be done with this article, some of it correcting errors of fact as above and more of it having to establish an agreed-upon rubric for what does (and equally importantly does not) constitute a cult film. So....more to come. Sensei48 ( talk) 05:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is Caddyshack!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 ( talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fight Club not only has a cult but it has a militia, it deserves a mention in the section about the newer flicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.178.145 ( talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Cult film is clearly WP:Notable. User:Piano non troppo claims "The issue is that the allmovie reference provided defines term in such a way that's it's impossible to identify what is and what is not 'cult'". Many notable things are not completely unambiguous. For example, cult itself is not precisely defined, some people believe that the Falun Gong is a cult, some do not. Yet the idea of a cult is clearly notable. The reason is that there are many things we can say about "cult-like behavior". Likewise cult film is clearly notable because there are many things that we can say about cult films, they often have poor reception in theaters and then become spectacularly popular over time gaining a following that is often irrational about there love of the movie, cult-like, etc. For those who like to ref the WP:MOS, this topic has significant coverage in WP:Reliable Sources. Cheers, — sligocki ( talk) 02:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of this article includes truly epic awkwardnesses of phrasing and logic. At the very least, the plethora of weasely passive voice constructions (e.g., "was championed by a small number of dedicated film fanatics who seek out lesser-known offerings," "the film was given a cult status," "film has since received cult status" - many more similarly tortured constructions. Sensei48 ( talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to suggest a movie to add to the article.... don't. Provide a citation from a reliable source that describes it as a cult film (by the definition agreed to for this article), find an appropriate place where it fits the narrative of the article, and add it there. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is a typical example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. There's nothing but negative remarks. This is a typical example of the difference between an encylopedic definition entry and an attempt at an essay. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not a cult movie, it is a midnight movie. I can only think of a couple of examples of cult movies, Electra Glide in Blue and Buckaroo Banzai. Ncsr11 ( talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I take issue with the descriptions of Blade Runner and Blue Velvet as "cult films" in some permanent sense. These were certainly "cult films" for several years after they were issued, not having done great box office, but with a strong fanbase that helped popularize these films. But after a decade or so, both of these films had attained the status of classics (and not just "cult classics"), routinely cited on critic's lists of top films, and in the case of Blade Runner, chosen by the Library of Congress for the National Film Registry. I think at that point, films with that level of success cease to be "cult films". Peter G Werner ( talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Are The Chronicles of Narnia films considered cult films, or are they too popular?-- 72.47.89.12 ( talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You've only been saying "this needs work" for about six years, by my estimate, and most of the responses on this talk page indicate that the bulk of the "editors" think that means, "Needs more fancruft." This has degenerated into a collection of poorly constructed sentences and fragments that convey little in the way of concrete information about the subject. It is largely a crufty example farm. The only useful information appears in the intro paragraph, and this same info with little elaboration is repeated ad infinitum throughout.
If this wasn't a useful subject for an article, I'd suggest AfD.
It needs to be gutted. Find an expert on the subject, and start over from scratch. Then lock the page before the fanbois arrive to crap it up again. 12.233.146.130 ( talk) 00:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I just rewrote the intro for List of cult films, since that article had been tagged with original research for over a year. If we expand that, I think we can use it here, too. The advantage is that it's rather highly referenced, avoiding original research. The disadvantages are that it's a bit unwieldy, with all those references; it's a bit short; and it doesn't really explain things as well as the current definition. However, I think it shouldn't be impossible to make it work. For reference, this is what I wrote:
A cult film, also commonly referred to as a cult classic, is a movie with a cult following, obscure or unpopular with mainstream audiences, and often revolutionary or ironically enjoyed. [1] [2] Sometimes, the definition is expanded to exclude films that have been released by major studios or have big budgets, [3] try specifically to become cult films, [4] or become accepted by mainstream audiences and critics. [5] Cult movies are defined as much by audience reaction as they are content. [6]
Here are the references:
Any ideas on how we can expand on this, so that it's not so short? Ideas on how to define what is and isn't a cult film? After this, I figure we can move on to pruning the comprehensive list of cult movies from this article, since we've already got List of cult films. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions about major topics that the article is missing? There are still a few topics that I'd like to cover, but I think the basic skeleton is there. I touched on the various controversies over the definition of a cult film, and I think that section can be expanded quite a lot, given how vocal and opinionated some people are. Whether a cult film can lose its status deserves its own section, in my opinion. Blade Runner seems a good example, but there are many others. Also, I think the influence of 70s exploitation should perhaps be expanded. I've found some feminist essays critical of transgressive exploitation in cult films, which I think might be topical. Finally, I've been meaning to discuss non-American films, but I just haven't gotten around to it, yet. There's lots of information out there on Asian, European, and Australian cult films, but I'm not sure where to put it: should they have their own sections or should it be integrated?
There's lots of stuff to talk about, but I'm never quite sure how much to say, and how much of it is relevant. I've found some interesting sources on Google Books, and I intend on browsing through them for interesting quotations. If they intrigue me enough, I might try to find them locally. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I went from big paragraphs to smaller paragraphs... and then went back to big paragraphs. I think I'm satisfied with big paragraphs. Small paragraphs just look too choppy. I've been studying B movie, and they seem to have standardized in big, beefy paragraphs, with occasional smaller ones. If it's good enough for a Featured article, then it's good enough for me. I've also been thinking about adding a sidebar – not just because B movie has one, but because I think it might be helpful. However, I'm not sure how useful it would be, given cult film, cult video game, and cult following are rather niche topics, and most of them already link to each other rather prominently. Still, it might be something to think about, especially if other cult topics (such as cult TV shows) were ever added. Besides that, I think the article is starting to need copy editing more than it needs more information. Still, I think there's a lot of room for expansion, if I can get my hands on some more academic sources. The problem is that I don't want to turn this article into some kind of dry, academic treatise that's only understandable after getting a college degree. I'll see about trying to the library or bookstore this weekend. I've been meaning to grab a few promising sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
First off, I would like to congratulate User:NinjaRobotPirate for completely turning around this article. It is intelligently written and has wide coverage of the topic, so I have absolutely no issues about assessing it as B-class article.
However, I have one suggestion and one criticism as an editor. I think Cult film#Mainstream popularity would work better as the final chapter of the article: the transgression and fandom chapters are essentially discussing the form and characteristics of cult films, whereas the mainstream popularity section basically discusses the mainstream appropriation of cult film and the manufacturing of the cult phenomenon; it would work better as a conclusion to the article IMO, but this is just a suggestion not a request. As for the criticism, I find the "camp classics" chapter rather weak in relation to the other sections. Unlike the other sections which are tightly written and engaging and cut to the chase, I find this chapter to be a bit "waffly" and adopting more of an essay style tone, and it doesn't seem to add a whole lot to the understanding of the topic. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've got a few questions and issues about this new section:
An editor has recently been determined to insert coverage of The Thief and the Cobbler at this article (see [4], [5], [6]). There are two problems I have with the recent edits:
Basically it appears like POV pushing to me. I have reverted the editor once so I would like some further opinions before doing so again. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a little while now, and I think the article is close to ready for good article nomination. Here are the remaining issues:
I haven't been too chatty on the talk page lately, but that's partly because whenever I start to write a message like this, I think to myself, "Why are you discussing this? Just be bold and make the edit." However, I think these issues may need actual discussion. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article
anime fandom deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage.
The lad searches the night for his newts (
talk) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The rest of the GA review attempts by The lad searches the night for his newts have long since been closed, as they weren't being based on standard GA criteria. As Mark Miller feels he shouldn't take over this review, the nomination has been returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention from a competent reviewer. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Freikorp ( talk · contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Due to the size of this article, I expect my review will not be complete for several days. Freikorp ( talk) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I've passed the article now, well done. Freikorp ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cult film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://localbiz.carrollcountytimes.com/community_times/blogs/goodbadtaste/good-bad-taste-rocky-horror-picture-show-and-the-so/article_58a28700-b2fe-50bf-9890-8429a2c6a9a5.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cult film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
is there a more simpler understanding on what makes a movie a cult classic? the term can be hard to define but how do you know for sure on what makes a movie a cult classic? I'm someone with autism and need help with understanding it a bit better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:600C:B600:9CA9:D2D6:E5C6:CFB7 ( talk) 06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
is there something that tells you what audiences generally thought of a film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:600C:B600:CC06:C779:9D1:BEA0 ( talk) 09:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
(Copied from what I said at Talk:Cult following a while ago so more see it).
If you look at basically any article about an obscure, badly-received movie (e.g. most of what Mystery Science Theater has), Wikipedia will say “this film has gained a cult following”.
This is dumb. It really doesn’t mean anything—you could probably say this about any movie if you look hard enough at the vast expanse of the Internet. In most cases, that a movie or other work has a “cult following” is meaningless, or at least not notable. DemonDays64 ( talk) 01:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cult moive. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
A Cult Film article with no mention of Bruce Robinson's 'Withnail And I' one of the quintessential examples of a cult film?
I think this is a very well-done article. I am a fan of many of the varieties of cult films but I object to the label being applied to every film that does more business after theatrical release than it did during. (F'rinstance... I love Hocus Pocus... but in my opinion (for what little that's worth) it isn't a cult film -- it's a mainstream movie that didn't achieve commercial success until TV broadcasts and home video.) This article approaches the issue very effectively -- particularly in that it presents descriptions of a variety of routes that a film may take on its way to cult status. Kudos!!! PurpleChez ( talk) 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Article is way too long for a simple film genre. Especially since much of the content is unsourced. If there are any issues feel free to reply. Triosdeity ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
How is this considered a good article? The tone of the article is incredibly unprofessional, the information in sections such as “art and exploitation” is dubious at best (with original research and awful formatting of the points). The article needs serious work and reevaluation the overall delivery 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:4EE:E21F:8554:DF50 ( talk) 02:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
A lot of how this article defines what is and what isn't cult certain around conditions and assumptions that could only exist prior to the Internet. Is something still cult if anyone with a computer can now watch it? So many movies that were once impossible to find if you didn't live in a big city are now easily available. How are box-office bombs measured these days when so much content was never intended for the big screen in the first place? Streaming services, like Netflix or Amazon Prime, give what probably would be considered cult shows a new season and suddenly the whole world is watching. Have the rules changed and if so what's the measuring stick being used? Xenomorph erotica ( talk) 23:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding " Academic Xavier Mendik also defines cult films as ..." I have read the interview and I am afraid that our article too liberally reinterpreted what he actually said. In particular I didnt find where he "defines cult films as opposing the mainstream". And other parts of the blurb in question. - Altenmann >talk 01:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
... creativity does in fact lie beyond the mainstream ... And because they’re not constrained by the mainstream, their productions can be far more creative and challenging and often far more political." Perhaps that was it. If so, it could be clarified better. The rest of it is right there, though: "
There are movies that are ‘cult’ by virtue of the genre" and "
... what tends to happen is when society feels stable and comfortable the horror tends to be very joky and unthreatening ... Right now we’re in such a profound period of instability both in the UK and the US, it’s producing great movies."NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The lede is waaaaaaay too long. WP:LEDE: A lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an essay in itself. - Altenmann >talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)