Where did the term "cult film" come from, and when can it die?
It's such an annoying bullshit term. "Oh this film actually targets a particular audience instead of trying to appeal to literally everyone? Cult classic!"
Not every girl wears vintage-print dresses but I don't see anyone saying "Oh there goes Jenna in her cult outfit again". I like shrimp, and even though most of my friends hate shrimp none of them pester me about my "cult food" when I go out to eat.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
briansdriveintheater.com
twitter.com
Once upon a time the term made sense. Now with film budgets being astronomical, and most Hollywood films in general being reducible to a simple formula the term is a joke.
>I don't see anyone saying "Oh there goes Jenna in her cult outfit again"
They call that "boutique"
This desu, before modern viral marketing and social media it was a lot easier for a movie to be legitimately "underground" and have niche followings
It's just a term used by faggot hipsters who imagine themselves superior to everyone else while they fantasize being film critics. In reality they are just depressed attention whores just looking for something they can belong to, like the faggots of Sup Forums
subtext analysis of the film, if you've seen the film, its worth a watch
youtube.com
I thought the term referred to movies that were not necessarily successful during their initial box office run, but developed a following, or fan base after a period of time. That's how I've always thought of them. I would consider Blade Runner to be an example of a cult classic.
Pic related. People who will defend this piece of shit
>inb4 pleb yeah yeah whatever cocksucker
see you probably didn't understand it because pea brain lol
There's a documentary called "Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream," which is about the original 6 cult movies. They are as follows:
>Eraserhead
>Rocky Horror Picture Show
>Night of the Living Dead
>El Topo
>Pink Flamingos
>The Harder They Come
It is the wet dream of every film student and fan ever to make a movie like one of those aforementioned six, even though the cultural landscape of now has shifted so much that it's impossible for such a thing to exist.
Take the movie "Blue Ruin." If it had been made ~40 years ago, it would likely be included as the 7th of the list of Midnight movies, but it simply cannot be so because no one goes to movies anymore to see obscure new films when we can easily watch them on Netflix(etc.) or simply pirate it.
op is a faggot who doesn't even know the actual definition of terms he's mad about
Pink Flamingos is still kino as fuck
Is there an official midnight movies list anywhere?
All of them are
Idk about beyond those six - but if you haven't seen all of those, you may as well start with them
this
>Oh this film actually targets a particular audience instead of trying to appeal to literally everyone? Cult classic
it's the opposite actually
it casts a broad net ,but only ends up only appealing to a small "cult" audience
>implying someone else's opinion can ever EVER change the nature of a creation or work of art
you pleb
Films reflect human experience. Some films appeal to a smaller demographic than others because they focus on a narrower range. Korean films are a great example, they are big in their countries but have a small "cult" following in the United States.
Youre confusing "indie" with "cult". Indie is a term used while the film is in production, cult is used for the reaction it gets after release. As to why people make indie movies, they are cheeper and, again, are usually targeting a smaller group of people.
this is a lot of fun
Yup, back in the day shit like invader zim or braindead didn't have the required means to pull together and condense the audience interested in it. Now with big internet communities and YouTube faggots reviewing obscure shit in lieu of new material it's easy to learn about the weirder shit you'll like.
I guess "cult classic" should be changed to "smaller fanbase."
>comparing blue ruin to anything on that list
you were doing so well too.
I don't understand your anger. You're upset because people only use the term 'cult' when referring to movies? Nothing is stopping you from saying those things.
Also it's a term because there are movies that are not well known/well liked with the mainstream but have large outspoken followings. Why would it be bullshit to have a name for such a thing? Because some movies try to advertise themselves a culty?
I don't, you just sound like your complaining about nothing. Which I guess isn't weird or anything.
I know, I just couldn't think of any underground movies made in the last couple years to serve as an example. It really goes to show that something of the caliber of those six just can't be made in today's climate.
That being said, Blue Ruin is a really good movie. What it lacks in experimentation, it makes up for in characters and themes.
>movie doesn't do well, or even see wide release
>movie becomes idolized on home video by dedicated group of hardcore fans who gradually bring it to profit point
Hence, "cult".
>I guess "cult classic" should be changed to "smaller fanbase."
Why
This. Cult is a fine descriptor. People ITT just seem angry at an imaginary hipster bogeyman.
The problem isn't that people can't/won't experiment anymore or anything like that, it's there simply is no underground anymore. Everything can reach anyone.
Cult movies used to be movies that were great in a lot of ways, but didn't fit into the extremely narrow band of what the mainstream media could deem acceptable. But that band is so wide now the only things that don't fit are just plain bad.
I agree with what you're saying, but I do think there is a very real lack of experimentation happening right now in film.
It's basically a polite way of saying 'Reviewed well. Sold shit."
Since literally everyone on the internet fancies themselves the Grand Imperial Master Authority on Everything, they take it on themselves to ascribe the first term. So in practice it just means any movie they liked but nobody else did.
I did understand it it was pretty straightforward. The style and pacing is just 2edgy2hipster for me that's why I don't understand reddit cucks like you say it's a masterpiece. Pic related if you slow this shit down, add fucking volcanoes and exploding skulls, faggots like you will call it classic so please castrate yourselves and go back live in the 80s
that movie there in particular was super bad
you need to go back
I believe there's just nothing left to experiment with. A hundred years of articulation doesn't leave much left. Then if you experiment and come out similar to anything else, you're a knockoff.
I lasted ten minutes on that shit and I'm still angry about it.
As someone who definitely won't be the person to invent the next revolutionary technique, it's very hard for me to say if everything has been done. I expect VR to produce a whole new world of cinematic techniques, but that'll take another 10-20 years to realize. Maybe drones will begin producing something new in a shorter amount of time - but I think the sound they produce may be too prohibitive
wow project more lmfao
not him, but i imagine it's because it's a lot harder for movies and other media to go "under the radar" for the reasons the other guy posted
There certainly is a lot that has not been done in film (at least outside of film student wankery) but it all comes with the caveat of "why would you want to?" For its to the point the outcome of just about anything is known at this point. Especially with such a limited format as a 16:9 box.
Interactive mediums are completely different formats that open up a lot in the way of articulation. Of course not much in the way of experimentation is happening because the video game industry is filled mostly with people who failed to make it in film or television.
And really, what could someone do with a drone that couldn't have been done with a pole, crane, or a helicopter? All sorts of seamless camera transitions have been done without needing remote control flying cameras.
As for drones, I think the size factor is what will prove key to their avoiding redundancy. Having a camera literally fly through the cracks in a wall is something that can't be done outside of CGI currently.
And I'd argue that aside from maybe ~40 odd films made in the last 16 years, videogames on a whole have been more consistent in quality. I'd point to the year 2004 in particular as one in which more art-tier videogames were released than there had been art-tier movies in the first ten years of the 21st Century film combined. That being said, both mediums have stagnated artistically in a very moribund way.
It's almost like executives of visual mediums had their R&D scientists crack the secret to making perfectly mediocre things. Not technically bad, something you enjoy for the first viewing/12 hours, but not something you'd ever return to - let alone remember years from now
>its not old enough to remember before digital entertainment
le sigh.
it used to take effort to know things. not just a 4g phone. asstart.
>It's almost like executives of visual mediums had their R&D scientists crack the secret to making perfectly mediocre things.
Its simpler than that. Make something great, people expect the next thing to be great. Make something mediocre, people have no expectations.
It's not a wrong term, most critics determine the quality of a film by how much it appeals to everyone, then you've got ppl like armond white who'd rather critique the flm based on their own tastes, and when ppl like him are paired up w/ ppl like chris stuckmann, ppl get mad as though their tastes are being challenged. i.e. Dark Knight is hailed as masterpiece by reddit and imdb because everyone enjoyed it, then on places like Sup Forums u get cinephiles and normies clashing, calling ea other contrarians and plebs etc