stoudman t1_j26h8vu wrote
Reply to comment by WatchMoreMovies in is it true movies cant become cult films anymore due to constant opinion change? by bonghive
...but if 4 people respond that they like that random movie you mention, does a group of 4 people constitute a "cult following"?
I feel like the movie has to become profitable again for studios in order to consider it a cult film.
EDIT: Well, profitable again for SOMEONE, at least -- like Rocky Horror is profitable for theaters to run every now and then in certain markets. That might just be profitable for the theater, but the point is it draws in enough of a crowd to make money.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j26ixa2 wrote
This is the stupidest take on this possible.
Profit has NOTHING to do with a film's PERCEPTION and FANBASE. MANY beloved films were financial failures. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND only sees "movies that make the most money as the best!"
stoudman t1_j26jdzs wrote
What?
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I didn't say profitability = good. I said profitability after an initial failure at the box office was necessary for cult status...
...and if you look at the actual, undeniable history of cult films? That's....100% true.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j26kzwh wrote
Very deniable. Because you, or I, don't get to define cult status. It's not like a record that goes platinum where you count the units. There's no finite criteria. It doesn't even always apply to financial failures. Its just christened to films that are outside popular culture but have a passionate fanbase.
Something like Sweet Sweetbacks Badass Song that made 15 million dollars profit on box office alone is assuredly a cult classic. Because it's so radically different from everything being put out at the time.
You're just...incredibly misguided how you're looking at this.
stoudman t1_j26n5g9 wrote
I'm really not, but okay. Lol.
Talking to someone with decades of education in film who lived through the prime period of the cult classic, but sure I'm just wrong...okay. Right. Sure. Whatever. Hate this sub.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j26qpn9 wrote
Well that's just it then, isn't it. You think you "lived through the time period of the cult classic" and with all your decades of education you get to label what it is.
But you don't. Especially now. The new cult cannon isn't defined by your criteria and nobody, not even you, can learn yourself an education in how to predict the future, what will re-ignite a new generation's passion or how they'll see it, and what will define a film as a success.
And frankly, someone who seems as close-minded, stubborn and sour on not being agreed with doesn't even seem the type of person to be into any kind of cult scene, regardless of genre. Because it requires an empathy for offbeat things that have indirect conclusions.
stoudman t1_j26ufcd wrote
Wow, now you're just making assumptions about me as a person. I'm extremely empathetic, I have an anxiety disorder and part of it is literally feeling strong emotions over being wronged or other people being wronged.
I minored in film studies, took dozens of classes on film, and experienced firsthand exactly how and why movies became cult classics in the 80s and 90s.
You've pointed to an example that stands out among the crowd as one of the few cases where a film became a cult classic despite being successful upon its initial release.
You're trying to say that one example is proof that I'm wrong about the other 99.9% of movies that are cult classics and how they have historically become cult classics.
That's bullshit. That offends me as a film fan. There's more going on with a movie like Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song than "cult classic" can clarify -- you absolutely need to mention it's a blaxploitation film, you need to mention that it wasn't widely available for a long time, you NEED TO FACTOR THESE DETAILS IN...and at least from my perspective, you personally are just ignoring those factors and attempting to use this one film as an argument to insist that every other cult film that ever came out and the formula for their success is somehow wrong or misunderstood.
Like, you'd need to write me a whole ass book explaining your perspective on this if you want me to buy the idea that one movie defines cult classics in a way that thousands of others considered cult classics do not.
Jancipants t1_j26zsh3 wrote
When the person arguing with you basically says “yOu cAn’t dEfiNe what tRuth is” you know they aren’t a serious person. Half of culture debate is defining terms and categories. Watchmore is hardcore gatekeeping. Bleh.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j2703ba wrote
You're a brick wall. You look at film as some concept to be mastered and beaten with rules and logic at every turn. Black and white. Pass or fail.
And it's not. It's subjective. It's as simple as that. And so are vague classifications like "cult classic"
I'll say my point just one more time: there are no rules in defining why, how or when anything can be defined as a "cult classic" and just because it doesn't meet your specific qualifications doesn't mean it doesn't mean a great deal to "cult" of people.
I'm not going to write you a book you'll never read, and only go through with a red marker and point out punctuation errors or conjunctions in. Because that's the kind of criticisms you give. Absolutes. Great for English lit 101, maybe, but you're not listening to a single thing because you've already made up your mind and you just want to fingershit out more ranting and posturing to validate your one-dimensional opinions as fact despite it being on a medium that exists in speculation, personal taste and relativity.
We're done here. Have a nice night.
ltdan84 t1_j28w9mk wrote
If those four people are so passionate in their fandom for the movie that they become a cult following then yes. And the movie doesn’t ever have to be profitable for anyone in order for it to develop a cult following.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments