secret glizzies

No.

Good perspective!

Okay see this is perfect, because someone (/u/stoudman who had a great response) elsewhere in the thread told me that their absolute key element of what constitutes a cult film is that it has to FAIL first. That for it to be a cult film, even before time passes it has to first be rejected by contemporaneous viewers.

Really, if the argument is that no one worth listening to right now likes this film and only a few passionate weirdoes are going to be talking about it 5 years from now... isn't that the literal definition of what a cult film is? Something that people didn't like when it was released and and the general public thought it was a failure?

That's valid. It's had a lot of online engagement, and in todays age that's probably an inseparable aspect of viewership. But what constitutes as "word of mouth" in online discourse today, then? How can someone contribute positive engagement without it being perceived as astroturfing, or is that even possible now?

Shit's fucked up in the FP, yo

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I should clarify that I've seen Skinamarink, and while I loved it personally, I think the average viewer, even amongst horror films, is going to absolutely shit on it. And i can understand why -I anticipate there's going to be a lot of 1 and 5 star reviews with very little in between. As a genuine question, would this be the way to quantify success or failure for a film that's playing on a tiny amount of screens and then going straight to Shudder? Box office numbers aren't have the same measurement they used to be, and word-of-mouth is an entirely different beast. Interested in your opinion on how that works in a modern age.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, you got me on Blair Witch. By my own logic, it is not a cult film

Well this particular example is only popular thus far within a very niche, but very passionate audience, is getting only a limited theatrical release where I anticipate it will be very divisive and not be particularly profitable given the extremely limited amount of screens, and then go off to the modern equivalent of "the rental market and cheaply licensed titles on television" which is niche streaming services that cater to limited audiences.

Contrast this to something like, say, The Blair Witch Project, a film which got heavy festival buzz, had a successful limited theatrical engagement before going on to a very profitable wide release, spawned an entire franchise, and is still considered by most reasonable measures to be a considered a Cult Classic.

Please, let me clarify I'm not saying that "Skinamarink" is a Stone-Cold Cult Classic at this time. I was offering, as a rebuttal to OP's assertion regarding cult films, a modern film that, in my experience, is showing all the hallmarks of something that has a strong chance to, WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, develop that reputation.

Interestingly, people keep saying "usually", "generally", "almost all" with regards to the criteria of what constitutes a cult film which is literally admitting there are cult films that do not fulfill said criteria. Again, my main point is that films like these are still being and will continue to be made.

That's right, longevity is also a very important factor in what becomes a cult film which is why I said "starting to develop as", and not "empirically categorized as", a distinction which acknowledges this.

Well it's already developing quite a passionate fan base and is making a ton of peoples "Best Of Horror 2022" on Letterboxd and elsewhere from people who have been able to see it, so it's certainly checking the boxes thus far.

Hell, Skinamarink is already starting to develop as a new cult film favorite and it's not even officially out yet.

> someone on twitter said it

People really, really, really need to stop relying on this as a metric.

If anything most of what we would call "cult films" had bad reviews on top of bad box office earnings on release.

I can hear the crunch just looking at them!

Jails can't hold that much

The heist from Rififi.