Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Miklonario t1_j263z1a wrote

Reply to comment by liberterrorism in is it true movies cant become cult films anymore due to constant opinion change? by bonghive

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

7

SpaghettiLove2 t1_j266iw1 wrote

How can a movie be a cult film favorite if it isn't even out yet ?

8

Miklonario t1_j266udo wrote

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.

−4

SpaghettiLove2 t1_j2676cl wrote

I feel like in order for something to be a cult film it has to stand the test of time

Just because some people on letterboxd like it doesn't mean anything

19

Richard_Sauce t1_j26ab1q wrote

Agreed.

Snakes on Plane had a "cult following," up until the day it actually came out. Other movies can initially spark a lot enthusiasm but become quickly forgotten. Cult Films, usually, are slow burns where audiences discover them after the fact. Sometimes that process even takes decades.

Though, how the internet age has affected all of that is definitely up debate.

15

ScottRiqui t1_j27sjog wrote

Agreed - I think "Serenity" from 2005 is a good example of a modern(ish) cult film. It was a follow-up movie to a TV show ("Firefly") that only ran for one season twenty years ago. It had a $39 million budget and only grossed $40 million, so it wasn't a commercial success at the time, but it's got an 82% critic score and a 91% audience score so there are a lot of people out there that enjoy/enjoyed it. And you can't go to a con without seeing people cosplaying the characters or selling related merch. Who knows how much of the popularity is from the TV show and how much is from the movie, but regardless - there's still an enthusiastic fanbase ~20 years later for productions that weren't widely successful when they came out.

5

Miklonario t1_j267sr0 wrote

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.

1

ha-Satan t1_j27olqu wrote

It's easy to be seen as a cult film when people keep astroturfing it.

3

Miklonario t1_j27y5oj wrote

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?

1

ha-Satan t1_j27yrk4 wrote

Skinamarink is garbage. It's a pretentious film school thesis that only really innovates in how fucking tedious a series of shots of closed doors and empty hallways can be and still be called a movie.

Skinamarink can go fuck itself. There's your word of mouth.

2

Miklonario t1_j27z7hb wrote

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?

0

MrMrAnderson t1_j286o3c wrote

Did you make it or something? Why do you care so much. It's not a cult film yet, if it ever is you'll know in like ten or fifteen years

1

stoudman t1_j28n63c wrote

To be clear, while I do believe that an overwhelming majority of cult classics fail before they succeed, the reason that factor is important is because it makes the licensing fees for the film more affordable.

The more affordable it is to license, the more streaming services and television channels will show it; the more it gets streamed and broadcast on television, the more people will see it more than once. That repeated viewing and opportunity to gain an appreciation for the movie is also integral as far as I'm concerned.

The kind of movies that will be cult classics tomorrow are going to be movies people have already seen half a dozen times today.

1

stoudman t1_j26grxx wrote

I disagree.

One of the main things that almost all cult films have in common is that they were not successful upon their initial release and only became popular in later years due to the rental market and cheaply licensed titles on television.

I do not think you can call a movie cult if it isn't even out yet, especially if it's already very popular upon and before its release.

2

Miklonario t1_j26inbr wrote

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.

0

stoudman t1_j26ki7v wrote

I wouldn't classify Blair Witch a cult classic, to be honest.

The Last Broadcast. The Poughkeepsie Tapes. The McPherson Tapes.

These are cult classic found footage horror films. Blair Witch was pretty much popular from the get go for reasons you yourself described.

These movies gained a cult following after the fact.

I feel like Lake Mungo is a good modern example that shows how it can be done today, but again...not popular upon release, only popular after the fact.

For sure some films develop a cult following in different ways from the traditional methods, but I feel like if we're going to define parameters for the genre, failure at first and success at last is the FUNDAMENTAL KEY that makes a film a cult classic.

To predict a movie already getting buzz will be a cult classic is a bold prediction as far as I'm concerned, but I could be wrong.

2

Miklonario t1_j26ntbr wrote

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

1