Talk:Cult following
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I ended up on this page because there was a wikilink on the Superstar page to cult. As I figured, that like was devoted to religious and socialogical cults. From there, I went to the Cult (disambiguation) page, and then ended up the Cult following page, which seemed the most closest to what the Superstar article was referring to. This page, however, turns out to be only about the rather obsessive groups of fans for topics that are not on the mainstream radar, and does not discuss the just-as-fanatic fans of more popular subjects (for example, Michael Jackson fans. The question becomes, should this article cover both types of fans, or should there be two separate articles? At them moment, I can't see an way to put a title to two separate articles, so it may be best to cover both types of fans in this single article.
Also: This article should also cover some of the darker sides of fan obsessions, such as stalkings, etc. (or is there someplace else on the Wikipedia that it is already covered, and this article just needs a See also link added?). 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do no think it's true that the term cult following "is also used to describe the more obsessive fans of established mainstream performers." Whoever wrote that is just confused about the term.70.130.202.128 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Is "obsessive-compulsive disorders" accurate? An obsession with a celebrity isn't the same as an obsession with germs etc. and hoarding Michael Jackson collectibles isn't the same as hoarding newspapers for 20 years because you're afraid you might want an article one day and not have it. Beckett93 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Beckett93
Contents |
[edit] Splitting a section...
Shouldn't the "Examples of cult classics" section be split into a new article. It's getting kinda long and this page always takes a while to load on my browser. I think there's enough cult classics in film and television for them to have their own article. Doodoobutter 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, some of the things listed on it are way too popular to be cult. The Lord of the Rings movies? Give me a break. Samurai Drifter 11:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, definately...at least someone agrees. Doodoobutter 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] a possible different picture
I don't think the SR-71 provides as clear an idea of a cult following as something more familiarly associated with the term, like Star Trek or comics or something. maybe somebody can change it if there is enough agreement.
I'm really opposed to this picture as a representation of "Cult Follwoing" - I'd honestly rather have no picture at all. SlapAyoda 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A need for cult film definition and sub-division
Looking through the long list of "cult films" listed on this page and arguing with a friend about other films that people may consider for this list has lead me to start this discussion.
The title "Cult Film" originally given to movies like "This Is Spinal Tap" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" seemed to follow a more specific definition than given in this article. Unlike the Sci-Fi flicks listed or the Classics such as "An Affair to Remember", the (what I like to call) Pure Cult Films can mainly be categorized as such.
I feel that there is a need for a better division of the listed movies in this article and the deletion of many movies that are not cult films. (i.e. "The Sound of Music" was a Musical...Not a Cult Film)
Maybe instead of listing movies that are largely re-watched by a group of people we should focus our time on better defining the "cult movie". Each genre of film (i.e. comedy, action, adventure, sci-fi, etc...) contain cult films.
We generally used to define these films by an unusual, unexpected, or unexplained following. They did not necessarily need followers who would dress up or act out scenes from the movie, as this was a common occurrence for other movies accepted as mainstream. (i.e. any musical, "Grease", etc...) The people reenacting the scenes were considered actors, or just fans. Cult Film followers generally enjoy an aspect of their film because of a very specific appeal that is shared with others. This goes to say that a film does not become a cult classic simply because people re-watch it, or because DVD sales outweigh cinematic release.
As for the subdivision of cult classics and the deletion of items from the list, here are a few examples:
Star Trek followers are Trekkies, not cult film fanatics, Lord of the Ring followers are Tolkenites or whatever they like to be called, People who watch "Fast Times", "Caddyshack", "Ferris Bueller's", etc... like comedies from the 80s, People who watch "An Affair to Remember", "Its A Wonderful Life", etc... enjoy old classics,
LOTR and Star Trek, and Star Wars can be considered as the Large Sci-Fi Cult Classics with a side note saying that the word Cult may be that of its original definition or a shortening of the word "cultural" because the movies had such a large impact on the science fiction community.
The same can be said about the Large 80s Comedy Cult Classics like the above listed. You can also list other SNL movies in this category (such as the work of Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, and Eddie Murphy)
While it is true that the above mentioned films and more may be considered to have cult film qualities, It may be better for historical reference to group them into these categories. It gives a better sense of the films' audience. This differs from the audience or followers of specific Pure Cult Classics that may enjoy a more random assortment of film genres. (It is safer to say that the Sci-Fi community enjoys Star Trek than to say that the 80s comedy community enjoys "This Is Spinal Tap" or that the musical community enjoys "Rocky Horror")
This website [1] lists Entertainment Weekly's Top 50 Cult Movies as well as contains a comprehensive history of what I call "Pure Cult Films".
A better definition and subdivision is needed for what wikipedia and other sources consider to be cult classics. Mine is merely a suggestion.
--Efd207 09:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Efd207 (and I hope he is still with this site). For me, a "Cult picture" can't be judged purely on its merits in regards to the genre - for example, I would laugh at anymore who considers any of the Star Wars films to be a cult film - but instead, a film that reaches a particular audience despite genre or even the overall ineptitude of the film. Examples that come to mind (completely subjectively), are Plan 9 From Outer Space, I Spit on Your Grave, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Heart Huckabees, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Evil Dead (and debatably its sequels), Last House on the Left, The Wild Bunch, Freddy Got Fingered, and Ishtar. These are films which I have personally witnessed to have large followings despite mediocre (at best) cinematic draws. Most of them have poor home video draws as well.
Regardless of my personal observations, I think it should be obvious that this article has a very narrow-minded view of what a "cult film" is, and it should be revised heavily. SlapAyoda 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs work.
I would love for this article to be a "great" or even "good" article here on Wikipedia. I'm sure others feel similarly, but for myself I would place the entire concept of a "Cult following" to be a top priority for anyone interested in popular culture. If I had the time, I would do my best to improve it, but alas I do not have the time. If anyone out there can improve upon this, I would urge them to do so. This article cites a few well-known cult followings, leaving out many popular ones, but overall does not fit the WP style. What would be best would be a top to bottom analysis of the concept of "Cult Followings", followed by a list of notable examples. There are tons of sources out there on this material - get going, guys! SlapAyoda 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
