Talk:Cult film

message: 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)
thread_title: Cult Following

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, up on the page, you can see a flag called "History", alternatively you can click on this link. If you click on the different versions, let's say one that was changed a couple of days ago, you can access the information (see that specific version). --MoRsE (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed lists of cult films, cult actors and cult directors per afd consensus 

message: 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)
replies: text: This article contains a bunch of movie guys defining and discussing cult films.  I'm sure someone, perhaps even future-me, can synthesize a definition from these.  Link here so I don't lose it.  http://www.cineaste.com/articles/cult-film-a-critical-symposium Paulc206 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and defining cult film 

message: 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)
replies: text: I wonder if the whole concept of cult film has survived the VCR - DVD - download evolution.  One easy marker of a cult film used to be how and when one could see it.  Pre-VCR, it would usually be a "midnight screening" or a rare late-night UHF showing, something that felt a bit daring or difficult.  During the VCR era it might be hard to acquire, and yet desirable to a small fanbase who would often trade homemade copies or seek out rare or foreign releases.  Now, well ... we may be left with simply niche films, not quite the same thing.  Paulc206 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Problem of the Rocky Horror Precedent 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I could not concur more completely. This article should be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. It is a personal, subjective, idiosyncratic, and largely ill-informed POV of what "cult" means as applied to film. Check out the OED definition below - "fringe, non-mainstream." That dictionary  is the best and most general arbiter of definition in English, and by its dicta nearly none of this article is relevant to the proper use of "cult" by real film devotees, critics, and historians. Night of the Living Dead and Reefer Madness? Most certainly. But  major studio releases by directors like Kubrick, Ridley Scott, Speilberg and others mentioned as cult???? 2001, Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange -    these were major studio productions, major releases, much discussed at the times of their releases and ever since, and seen by tens of millions over the years. You just can't stretch the word "cult" in ANY definition to fit about 70% of what is in this article. Add to that the wretched writing noted below and you have a perfect example of why no one past high school age (unfortunately) can take Wikipedia seriously. It is just distressing to read this.Sensei48 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And where did the editor author get the idea that the term was invented (or anything other than simply employed) by Danny Peary around 1980? The term was in common usage when I was coming of age as a student of film in the 1960s, and I have books on film from the 1940s that use it extensively. Further, a quick look at Peary's nominations for films with cult status reaffirms what I said above - there are virtually no A level major studio releases among his initial examples.Sensei48 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Need of a TOTAL Re-Do 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repetitive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Depending on Definition 

message: Why was this image removed, without warning and without mention in "history"?Karel leermans (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture Camping Cosmos - belgian cult movie 

message: 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
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Rocky Horror 2.JPG
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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:DonnieDarkoStill.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: The main article's Talk page is a good place to put this in.   If somebody can come up with a public citation referring to the website , it can be moved to the main page because it would then be sourced.  In the meantime, leave it here if you think it will improve the main page, but just don't have a citation for it yet.   In the meantime, there are a lot of people who check this out, and one of them may know of a famous celebrity (or anybody at all) who mentioned the website in public.   That would be enough to make it sourced.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's not correct. Mentioning a website in public by anyone does not make it a WP:RS, and a site with user-generated content such as this one will not qualify as a citable source. Sensei48 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  are links forbidden to be added? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where is Repo Man? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hindi Cult films. 

message: 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 likeA 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. 
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)). 
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)
thread_title:  Beginning Clean-Up 4/6/09 

message: Where is Caddyshack!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very difficult to think of this as a cult film - it was commercially successful and has had a very large and appreciative audience since its release. That's not "cult."Sensei48 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caddyshack 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, the "militia" is precisely what makes it not a cult film. By any definition, a film with a large and devoted following - which certainly defines major release and frequently broadcast Fight Club - isn't "cult" - see the discussions above on this page. Several editors have tried repeatedly to correct the misimpression that any film that excites intense allegiance is "cult." That term as noted on this page and in the article connotes a smaller group of devotées and a much lower public profile than FC. Sensei48 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight Club? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Style Tag 

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggesting movies to add to the article

message: 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)
thread_title: Bad article

message: 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)
thread_title: Once a cult film, always a cult film?

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Chronicles of Narnia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typical garbage article 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: Maybe we should keep the intro – for now, at least – and work on getting rid of the example farm.  We can use what I wrote, as an intro paragraph, and source some statements about the history of cult films, while getting rid of the vast list of examples.  I think I pretty much comprehensively filled out the list (maybe a bit too comprehensively, now that I think about it), so I'm going to delete the example farm here and try to come up with some references on history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much like what you're doing with the article, and the removal of the example farm also took out some really poor writing, especially the wildly inappropriate passive verbs ("was granted cult status" and the like). I have one observation, though - your edit follows the template of the original article in suggesting that cult films some how evolved into existence during or after the 1960s. That theory seems to follow some of the recentist sources who primary shortcoming is a lack of historical perspective. There were plenty of films from the 1920s on, during the peak era of Hollywood production when the studios released about three times more movies in a given year than they do today, that were genuine cult films - but the term to describe them thus did not exist. I don't want to go into the article and mess up the edit before it is stable and completed, but the opening sentence of "Genera Overview" needs refining and clarification - with sourcing, of course. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean.  Most sources certainly do have a rather recentist slant, and it's difficult to find something that goes further back than the 1970s, much less earlier than the 1960s.  My first draft was more of a complete rewrite, with a history that went back to the early days (1910s through 1930s), but I was having trouble finding reliable sources, and I didn't want to resort to turning this article back into a mountain of original research.  In the end, I abandoned that, and I decided to simply reword and reorganize the current article.  I'm not sure it was the right decision, but I'm finally making some progress on a rewrite, which is certainly an improvement over letting it sit in its previous state.  I can try to fit in some early history, but everyone wants to talk about The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Big Lebowski.  Nobody really wants to talk about the early days.  I'll try to find some better sources, though.  This would probably be easier if I had some of Peary's books or some other authority, but I'm working off of Google searches, mostly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the comments.  Looking over that section again, I agree with your criticism.  Most of the other sections have been rewritten a few times, but that one has received comparatively less attention.  Your idea about moving Mainstream popularity is good.  I had thought of moving it, but I couldn't decide where; now it seems obvious.  Also, I think the lead is probably too short, but I've been reluctant to properly expand it.  If it seems long enough to you, then I may just leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is good stuff in that final chapter, but it's all a bit unfocused and undisciplined. It's a good article, and it's one section away from being a great article. Basically in that section you are discussing one particular class of cult movies, but I think the film theory 101 needs to go and it should widen the net to consider cult movies as class of films in general: the "so bad it's good" movies are one particular type of film after all; you have musicals, nostalgia movies, genre classics like manga etc. So the way I see the structure of this article is that you have your definition, your general overview, and then you discuss form in the transgressive section, the various characterstics of cult movies in the fandom section, and then maybe discuss cult as a class of films in the next section to bring all the disparate concepts and theories from the previous two sections into something cogent that the reader can relate to. The commercialisation of cult works as a fitting conclusion, because you track its evolution from a social phenomenon to that of a marketable product. As for the length of the lede I don't think it's really a problem; it is servicable as it is, but could perhaps be improved if the emphasis was on summarising the article rather than as an introduction to the topic. When I write ledes, I see it as an exercise in completely rewriting the article in a couple of hundred words or so, but there no serious problems with it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sounds good.  The original article only discussed camp, and I went with it.  So, instead of just discussing camp, melodrama, and bad films, we'd discuss everything that falls under the cult film banner?  We could move some of the examples from throughout the article here, such as the cannibal boom, "unpopular genres" paragraph, and J-Horror, unless you think that they fit better in their current place.  I'm not sure; exploitation and horror may very well be best discussed in the transgression section and skipped over in this "types of cult films" section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  B class assessment 

message: An editor has recently been determined to insert coverage of The Thief and the Cobbler at this article (see , , ). There are two problems I have with the recent edits:
* The quality of the sourcing: of the sources used to actually back the claim it is a cult film,  doesn't back up the claim,  looks like an WP:SPS source and  is a dead link. Simply put, the sourcing doesn't come up to scratch IMO and looks a lot like an editor scratching around looking for anything that will back up his POV rather than summarising the published consensus. Many books have been written about cult films, so if a reputable book cannot be found to back up the claim then we must entertain the notion that the opinion is WP:FRINGE.
*Secondly, there is also the issue of WP:WEIGHT i.e. just because something is a cult film doesn't mean it has to be listed here. We have  List of cult films for that. This article is covering types of cult film and the namechecks (usually iconic cult films such as Blade Runner) are carefully chosen to highlight a particular aspect of the cult phenomenon. It is not a coatrack for simply reeling off the history of your favorite cult film.
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)
replies: text: The material has been appropriately reverted. None of the sources included reach the level of RS: they are blogs and fan sites.Sensei48 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I'm starting to lose patience.  This article used to be a complete mess, and there were quite a few calls on the talk page for a complete rewrite.  The biggest problems were a lack of solid sourcing, original research, namechecking individual films, and undue emphasis.  This seems like a return to that style.  I see no problem with a single sentence summary if a reliable source discusses it, but there's no place for a detailed history of the troubled production of an individual film.  Unless, perhaps, we're talking about Jodorowsky's Dune, and even that could probably be distilled down into one or two sentences by a determined minimalist.  Normally, I'd say, "Hey, let's start up a new paragraph about unfinished epics!", but this article is already way too long, and it's a wonder that nobody has tagged it for a split yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, on the size issue it is right up at the upper bound of acceptable. The readable prose is 60k and 9,000 words long. WP:LENGTH recommends splitting once readable prose exceeds 60k/10,000 words, so at the moment it is just about within its limits, but obviously there isn't much room for growth. I would be against splitting at this point because I'm one of those people who hates having content scattered across half a dozen articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thief and the Cobbler 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828161957/http://www.cineaste.com/articles/cult-film-a-critical-symposium to http://www.cineaste.com/articles/cult-film-a-critical-symposium
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416172113/http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=375dc063-9e4f-41c6-bd1e-b653d6cb6314 to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=375dc063-9e4f-41c6-bd1e-b653d6cb6314
*Added  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.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420073219/http://www.artslondonnews.co.uk/20110216_fashion-film to http://www.artslondonnews.co.uk/20110216_fashion-film
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120122004/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D9FI2T4G0.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D9FI2T4G0.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629195623/http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue7/battleroyale.html to http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue7/battleroyale.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this is a problem with our article – it's not all that easy to understand.  I probably made it too complex.  Basically, the answer to your question boils down to two primary ways that people define a cult film.  Some people define it by how audiences react, such as having an obsessed fandom.  Other people define it by how weird and over-the-top the film is.  Many people combine those two definitions.  So, if the film has both an obsessed fandom and is over-the-top in some way, most people would agree that it's a cult film.  There are other things, too, and the Wikipedia article goes into a lot of detail about them.  That's probably one of the reasons why it's confusing, though.  I've been meaning to write a companion article on Simple English Wikipedia that would be a lot easier to understand and not go into so much detail.  I haven't gotten around to it yet, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding cult film? 

message: 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)
replies: text: test showings (I think there's a show biz name for this....) are a HUGE part of commercial film making. Films will be entirely flipped around depending on audience reactions at test runs. PurpleChez (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you know when audiences react to a film? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: (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)
replies: text: I think it's more useful and interesting to explain why a film has drawn an obsessive fandom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm with DemonDays64 100%. I just posted a topic of my own before seeing this, prompted by the excessive over-use of the term "cult film." This article, I believe, handles the topic extremely well, but I believe nonetheless that the label has been applied so broadly as to become meaningless. PurpleChez (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should reconsider mentioning that films have a cult following 

message: 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, SONIC678 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cult moive" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: One problem with this article, I think, is that it reads too much like a policy-compliant thesis.  It could potentially get someone a bachelor's degree in cultural studies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  October 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it's rather a bit too dense and academic.  A couple sentences could potentially be rewritten to be less synthy, though.  Times were very different in the early 2000s, when this article was originally written.  I rewrote it, but that was back in the early 2010s, which was also a different time.  Unfortunately, I kept around some aspects of the original article, including the formatting, because I didn't want to rewrite the whole article from scratch without any kind of outline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this GA? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The whole streaming thing exploded after this article was written, so I guess you're right that it's missing.  The last paragraph in the lead covers this in broad terms, though.  The short version is that the each innovation (home video, cable TV, internet) changed a lot of things, but the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Websites that discuss cult films may post offensive content to get rid of the easily offended, and they may intentionally omit important facts during discussions.  This restores the exclusivity of cult films and makes the community impenetrable to the casual fans who just wandered in after watching a cult film on Netflix.  They might have found the film, but they can't join the community until they do the legwork necessary to understand it.  Rewatching a film dozens of times becomes a sign of dedication equivalent to what was once accorded to finding a rare film.  And having to go to pirate sites to find some of the most disreputable films is equated by some academics to how you used to have to go to the seedy side of town.  So, it changed, but it's not all that different.  That said, some academics have proclaimed that cult films are effectively dead, either because they've become too easy to find or because the term is now overbroad and meaningless.  So, if you're looking for a doom-and-gloom "modern civilization sucks and has ruined what I love", we've got that in here, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the Internet Change the Definition? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't remember exactly what I paraphrasing, but it does say ""  Perhaps that was it.  If so, it could be clarified better.  The rest of it is right there, though: "" and " NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you realize that "defines... as opposing mainstream" is not the same as "they’re not constrained by the mainstream". Please rephrase in the article. - Altenmann >talk 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendik 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it's perfectly fine.  That page says it should be "four well-composed paragraphs", which this is.  The article passed a GA with that lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the paragraphs themselves could be pared down? I know this is an article of which you are proud, but don’t allow this pride to potentially cloud your judgement in this respect. Just my two cents Editmakerer (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The length is fine. MOS:LEAD says, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs..." For some topics, four paragraphs would be a lot, but considering that this is a type of film that has a long history, it's definitely suitable, like with any film genre article or article about the history of film in some country. Furthermore, MOS:LEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and considering the article's length (about 9,200 words), fitting an overview into four paragraphs involves a lot of summarizing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede