Cult Classics

i just don't like the term "cult classic." it's too vague and people who don't normally watch any challenging/unusual movies just throw everything into the "cult" category because they think it's weird. Plan 9 From Outer Space, A Clockwork Orange, Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes, and Rocky Horror are all completely different things-- they don't deserve to get lumped together. Stanley Kubrick must be rolling in his grave, at the thought that his film is considered to be on the same level as the Toxic Avenger.

Most of my favorites have already been named (so I won't bother typing their names again, lazy me!) but no-one mentionned Paul Verhoeven's "Flesh and blood" (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0089153/)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@29 September 2003 - 16:41
i just don't like the term "cult classic." it's too vague and people who don't normally watch any challenging/unusual movies just throw everything into the "cult" category because they think it's weird. Plan 9 From Outer Space, A Clockwork Orange, Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes, and Rocky Horror are all completely different things-- they don't deserve to get lumped together. Stanley Kubrick must be rolling in his grave, at the thought that his film is considered to be on the same level as the Toxic Avenger.

---

here is someone trying to explain it, and mostly failing. Just as there was a need to recognize and isolate a different style of music within the category of "rock" and call it "alternative" or "punk" or whatever, there is an equal need to do the same with movies. Cult classics are movies that do not cater to the needs of the masses, but instead place more emphasis on artistic expression with the young generation in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MediaSlayer+29 September 2003 - 16:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MediaSlayer @ 29 September 2003 - 16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@29 September 2003 - 16:41
i just don&#39;t like the term "cult classic."&nbsp; it&#39;s too vague and people who don&#39;t normally watch any challenging/unusual movies just throw everything into the "cult" category because they think it&#39;s weird.&nbsp; Plan 9 From Outer Space, A Clockwork Orange, Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes, and Rocky Horror are all completely different things-- they don&#39;t deserve to get lumped together.&nbsp; Stanley Kubrick must be rolling in his grave, at the thought that his film is considered to be on the same level as the Toxic Avenger.

---

here is someone trying to explain it, and mostly failing. Just as there was a need to recognize and isolate a different style of music within the category of "rock" and call it "alternative" or "punk" or whatever, there is an equal need to do the same with movies. Cult classics are movies that do not cater to the needs of the masses, but instead place more emphasis on artistic expression with the young generation in mind. [/b][/quote]
I couldn&#39;t help but notice...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@29 September 2003 - 08:59
here is someone trying to explain it, and mostly failing. Just as there was a need to recognize and isolate a different style of music within the category of "rock" and call it "alternative" or "punk" or whatever, there is an equal need to do the same with movies. Cult classics are movies that do not cater to the needs of the masses, but instead place more emphasis on artistic expression with the young generation in mind.

---

i know what cult classic means, but i don&#39;t buy it. basically anything that joe sixpack doesn&#39;t understand is lumped together as "cult." it&#39;s a mish-mash of art and schlock that i don&#39;t think stands up as a true category.

i&#39;ve got probs with the idea of "alternative" music, too, though... which lumped together a bunch of different styles that didn&#39;t have anything to do with each other. ;)

that&#39;s exactly why alternative split into the sub-generas you see on soulseek

I haven&#39;t seen it Mentioned yet so I&#39;ll mention it now.

2001 A Space Odessey

If you don&#39;t do it people won&#39;t know what you are talking about it is a necessary evil. you can&#39;t label everything that is not mainstream with it&#39;s own title it would never work. people recognize the terms cult classic and alternative so it works. If you don&#39;t believe me that it takes people too long to grasp the concepts of smaller new catergories ask a forty year old what Emo is, and even though I personally can&#39;t stand emo I would hardly call it a brand new or even small catergory type.



*edit* sorry this was in reply to brainiac but I got beat to it.

Why split hairs?

Cult cinema is like everything else on this planet; it has varying levels of quality and substance.... a spectrum, if you will.

Sure, Troma cant compare in quality to Kubrik... but they&#39;re both film makers.

Cult spans the entire spectrum, like it or not.

i was once told that cult classics were mostly experimental movies that made it. made a little sense. one can be experimental with everything - a concept, a script, its implementation, camera works, etc. something like jason or texas chainsaw massacre could have become cult classic cause no one had seen so much blood o killing during that time. fight club can become cult cause of the script and central permise of the story, and QT&#39;s movies..well, i wouldn&#39;t know where to begin ;)

just my two cents B) / :ph34r:

This whole thread has been bastardized. Now everyone&#39;s naming any joe blow movie a cult classic. Take a look at this thread it is much better and you might get some good movies out of it.

id say for me
1. Weird Science - anthony micheal hall , kelly lebrock , robert downy jr
2. The Lost Boys - kiefer suthurland , cory haim , corey feldmen
3. Licence to drive - corey haim, corey feldmen

how about the wonder boys - toby magguire, micheal duglas, robert downey jr

i think it was cool movie, maybe even clever. it may come nowhere near a cult movie, but oh well, since this thread has been bastardized anyway :rolleyes:

drugstore cowboy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@30 September 2003 - 09:26
This whole thread has been bastardized. Now everyone&#39;s naming any joe blow movie a cult classic. Take a look at this thread it is much better and you might get some good movies out of it.

---

:rolleyes:

Here we go again

Who are you to say what does and what doesn&#39;t define a genre?

Personally, I just dont care whether some of the films listed in this topic fit the genre or not... It&#39;s an inexact genre... thats the beauty of it... and this is just a p2p community forum, not a national film archive.

Try to get a bit of perspective. Lives will not be lost because of inconsistent information here.

By the way, I found the sweeping accusation that "everyone&#39;s naming any joe blow movie a cult classic." not only arrogant, but patently wrong.

Sure, some folks&#39; opinions may differ from yours.. but if you have a problem with that, try to remember that it takes all kinds to make a world.


Keep &#39;em coming folks.. and to hell with the nit-pickers :P

justsomeguy, my sarcasm was much better ;) :lol:

just kidding dude...i agree with you.

while i don&#39;t agree with the nitpicker, i must say that movies like reservoir dogs and pulp fiction don&#39;t get mentioned for 2 pages, there gotta be some problem with this thread.

to all who raise controversy about cult genre, go to imdb and find out ONE movie that comes under only one genre.

@ thacowboy3: Well said :beerchug:

You&#39;re spot on with the reservoir dogs and pulp fiction comment... a lot of Terry Gilliam&#39;s work has been a bit of a glaring omission too..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@30 September 2003 - 08:19
drugstore cowboy

---

now theres a real cult classic :) :)

I thought a cult movie was one which was not aimed at the masses, yet has gained a strong following. :huh:

Maybe I&#39;m wrong, but one which comes to mind is The Boondock Saints.

Terry Gilliam rocks. 12 monkeys was awe inspiring not to mention Brasil and no child should go without seeing The Baron Munchausen (sp?). Also wouldn&#39;t the Monty Python movies find a good home in this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Justsomeguy+30 September 2003 - 11:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Justsomeguy @ 30 September 2003 - 11:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@30 September 2003 - 09:26
This whole thread has been bastardized. Now everyone&#39;s naming any joe blow movie a cult classic. Take a look at this thread it is much better and you might get some good movies out of it.

---

:rolleyes:

Here we go again

Who are you to say what does and what doesn&#39;t define a genre?

Personally, I just dont care whether some of the films listed in this topic fit the genre or not... It&#39;s an inexact genre... thats the beauty of it... and this is just a p2p community forum, not a national film archive.

Try to get a bit of perspective. Lives will not be lost because of inconsistent information here.

By the way, I found the sweeping accusation that "everyone&#39;s naming any joe blow movie a cult classic." not only arrogant, but patently wrong.

Sure, some folks&#39; opinions may differ from yours.. but if you have a problem with that, try to remember that it takes all kinds to make a world.


Keep &#39;em coming folks.. and to hell with the nit-pickers :P [/b][/quote]
And yea The Sound Of Music is a "cult classic"

Sorry for saying this thread has been bastardized but this thread is more like:

"Name Films You Liked"

Folks ARE naming any joe blow movie and calling it a cult classic.
It is like naming Terms Of Endearment and then someone says that not a cult classic and then I say well..... it&#39;s a cult classic to ME. Bullshit

And yes certain things DO define a genre.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Justsomeguy@30 September 2003 - 03:41
Here we go again

Who are you to say what does and what doesn&#39;t define a genre?

Personally, I just dont care whether some of the films listed in this topic fit the genre or not... It&#39;s an inexact genre... thats the beauty of it... and this is just a p2p community forum, not a national film archive.

...

Keep &#39;em coming folks.. and to hell with the nit-pickers :P

---

just to distinguish my point from busyman&#39;s, he&#39;s saying this movie & that movie aren&#39;t "cult," and i don&#39;t care which particular ones people call cult classics because i think the category is just an orphanage for anything & everything that regular noobs don&#39;t understand. just about everything listed as cult can easily be described by older, clearer categories like sci-fi, horror, comedy, "art," musical, etc etc etc.

maybe i just hate the idea of a "cult" category because it&#39;s so closely tied to "camp" and "kitsch," and to robot puppets making snickering remarks about anything that looks old and cheap. further reading on what "camp" is-- http://www.jahsonic.com/Camp.html

technically, though, i have to agree that cult by definition means it has a small following. if it&#39;s popular, it isn&#39;t "cult." i don&#39;t consider that nitpicking-- when was the last time you&#39;ve heard of a cult comprising the majority? if a cult is not a small minority, it ceases to be a cult. for example, "Pulp Fiction" is automatically excluded because of the high level awards it won and the truckloads of money it raked in.

the idea of cult just confuses people because it fails to define itself clearly, aside from the single criterion of being unpopular.

Quote:

---

technically, though, i have to agree that cult by definition means it has a small following. if it&#39;s popular, it isn&#39;t "cult." i don&#39;t consider that nitpicking-- when was the last time you&#39;ve heard of a cult comprising the majority? if a cult is not a small minority, it ceases to be a cult. for example, "Pulp Fiction" is automatically excluded because of the high level awards it won and the truckloads of money it raked in.

---

Umm..i dont know about that mate.Myself,i would class pulp ficion as a "cult classic".Maybe we could redefine "cult classic" to "a small devoted following".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ck-uk@30 September 2003 - 21:04

Quote:

---

technically, though, i have to agree that cult by definition means it has a small following. if it&#39;s popular, it isn&#39;t "cult." i don&#39;t consider that nitpicking-- when was the last time you&#39;ve heard of a cult comprising the majority? if a cult is not a small minority, it ceases to be a cult. for example, "Pulp Fiction" is automatically excluded because of the high level awards it won and the truckloads of money it raked in.

---

Umm..i dont know about that mate.Myself,i would class pulp ficion as a "cult classic".Maybe we could redefine "cult classic" to "a small devoted following".

---

Ahhh but as he 3RA1N1AC said, there is nothing small about Pulp Fiction.
People call something cult classic sometimes just because it&#39;s highly original or weird (Pulp Fiction was highly original).
They also call it cult when it starts a new genre.

And no 3RA1N1AC what I mean is just what I said.
Cult classic on this thread is Name A Movie You Liked.

pulp fiction is definitely a cult classic. its not fair to say that a cult by default has a small audience. its much better to define cult as a genre of movies that isn&#39;t mainsteam, the kind of movies that were not made with demographic data and graphs in mind [eg; italian job...can&#39;t get more mainstream than that], the kind of movies that were not designed to be block-busters.

successful that pulp fiction was, i don&#39;t think QT was writing it in consultation with experts on fan data or whatever you call it.

in my opinion, cult are those movies that weren&#39;t aimed at mainstream masses, but made it to them on account of their originality and innovation, or probably plain shock-value, none of it deliberately inserted into the movie.

edit - Terry Gilliam&#39;s works are better than most others i have seen.

And busyman, stop trying to define for us what cult is. the reason cult is vague is cause not even the flim-makers know what they are making when they are making it, in terms of genre. that&#39;s the best part about it.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.


It just means movies with a cult like following let it go already everyone has their own opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thacowboy3@30 September 2003 - 23:53

And busyman, stop trying to define for us what cult is. the reason cult is vague is cause not even the flim-makers know what they are making when they are making it, in terms of genre. that&#39;s the best part about it.

---

Okay then my bad really
Let&#39;s continue

Air Force One and Clear and Present Danger those are a good cult classics starring Harrison Ford. I loved those movies.

in my view cult classics can be of any genre and we all have our tastes. There is so many genres and some are actually 2 genres in one, like sci fi horror, and action comedy to name 2. Take the cult classic airplane, some say it plain comedy(pardon the pun), but some say it an action comedy. Another is jaws, horror, or action horror, i go for the latter, but my friend say it almost an horror. we all make up our own minds what some films genre&#39;s are, and some can actually be in more than 1. Take independence day, that is sci fi action , not just plain sci fi. Hence why we have now, action comedy, action thriller, sci fi action, and action horror. There is really no such thing as 1 genre now for a film, because most are a mix of 2.

Quote:

---

Air Force One and Clear and Present Danger those are a good cult classics starring Harrison Ford. I loved those movies.

---

now that&#39;s an actor..he hasn&#39;t looked back since star wars and indiana jones, has he??

i prefer harrison ford in the star wars and the indiana jones films, but he has been in some other good movies. some of my favourite actors are from the past. but some of my favourites are basil rathbone(the only real sherlock holmes ever), james cagney, and clint eastwood.
Clint i like best though in the old spaghetti westerns like the good the bad and the ugly, or as dirty harry. Dirty harry and the good the bad and the ugly are in my cult classics.

I agree that Terry Gilliam rocks&#33;

dirty harry and good, bad and ugly is in my list too. clint eastwood is a very good actor, retirement-phobic too i might add :lol:

some of his new stuff like spacecowboys, etc. don&#39;t do justice to him at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+30 September 2003 - 22:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 30 September 2003 - 22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ck&#045;uk@30 September 2003 - 21:04

Quote:

---

technically, though, i have to agree that cult by definition means it has a small following. if it&#39;s popular, it isn&#39;t "cult." i don&#39;t consider that nitpicking-- when was the last time you&#39;ve heard of a cult comprising the majority? if a cult is not a small minority, it ceases to be a cult. for example, "Pulp Fiction" is automatically excluded because of the high level awards it won and the truckloads of money it raked in.

---

Umm..i dont know about that mate.Myself,i would class pulp ficion as a "cult classic".Maybe we could redefine "cult classic" to "a small devoted following".

---

Ahhh but as he 3RA1N1AC said, there is nothing small about Pulp Fiction.
People call something cult classic sometimes just because it&#39;s highly original or weird (Pulp Fiction was highly original).
They also call it cult when it starts a new genre.

And no 3RA1N1AC what I mean is just what I said.
Cult classic on this thread is Name A Movie You Liked. [/b][/quote]
ARR..i know pulp fiction was a bit of a hit.But i dont think a movie would be categorized as a cult classic on its release.Imo a movie&#39;moves in to that genre after the hypes died down and just has a small devoted audiuece,enought to keep the movie rember&#39;ed.

Easy Rider.

What about all the "Carry On" films?

pulp fiction,pulp fiction,pulp fiction,pulp fiction,pulp fiction
fyi-pulp fiction is in a grey area
On the one hand, its hip for the soundtrack, the director, and the general message the movie sends. On the other hand, its not because:
A:regarless of whether it was intended for the masses or not, it is now widely cherished by the jackass generation
B:watching it over and over just isn&#39;t pleasant i.e.-it didn&#39;t stand up to the test of time like other cult classics did-i.e."this is spinal tap"
C:it wasn&#39;t all that good to begin with compared to other cult classics

Oh and if someone defines cult classic differently than what I&#39;ve proposed, that&#39;s ok I respect your opinion as long as you respect mine. But if you ask if a movie is a cult classic I&#39;m gonna say yes or no based on my definition, not yours. No harm in that.

Quote:

---

B:watching it over and over just isn&#39;t pleasant i.e.-it didn&#39;t stand up to the test of time like other cult classics did-i.e."this is spinal tap"
C:it wasn&#39;t all that good to begin with compared to other cult classics

---

B - wrong. i know a whole lot of people, including myself, who never get tired of the movie...there are even many teenagers in my area that have borrowed my dvd over and over again [eventually they stop cause they rip it].

C - err, i beg to differ. pulp was one of the first movies in american cinema to cross the 100 million dollar mark. QT is considered a cult director only on the basis of three movies, and mostly for pulp and dogs. its a little long, yes, but the only part i feel could have been omitted was the fabian-butch interaction. imho, pot-belly conversation and then good morning, where&#39;s my frigging watch? the jules-vincent chemistry is among the best i have seen between characters in any movie.

all in all, there&#39;s absolutely no doubt in my mind that pulp will be talked about in the same vein as the good, the bad and the ugly when its as old as the good, the bad and the ugly.

re-read the last paragraph of my post

well, that applies to me too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@1 October 2003 - 09:26
pulp fiction,pulp fiction,pulp fiction,pulp fiction,pulp fiction
fyi-pulp fiction is in a grey area
On the one hand, its hip for the soundtrack, the director, and the general message the movie sends. On the other hand, its not because:
A:regarless of whether it was intended for the masses or not, it is now widely cherished by the jackass generation
B:watching it over and over just isn&#39;t pleasant i.e.-it didn&#39;t stand up to the test of time like other cult classics did-i.e."this is spinal tap"
C:it wasn&#39;t all that good to begin with compared to other cult classics

Oh and if someone defines cult classic differently than what I&#39;ve proposed, that&#39;s ok I respect your opinion as long as you respect mine. But if you ask if a movie is a cult classic I&#39;m gonna say yes or no based on my definition, not yours. No harm in that.

---

I don&#39;t recall the thread being called "we give a rat&#39;s ass wether you say it is a cult classic or not".

@grimlock-ok then ;)

but wait, has anyone seen donnie darko? i tried to rent it but the movie rental place by my house doesn&#39;t have it :blink: