Talk:Cult following/Archives/2013

Cult followings

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

Cult Film

There's significant overlap between this page and Cult film. There should be some rationalisation between the two and/or at least a link. --Anarchangel23 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is an article on Cult Film --Anarchangel23 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2008 (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)

Others are too obscure. Since when is G.G. Allin a "widely celebrated figure in culture at large" that has transcended cult figure status? That's so preposterous, I'm thinking it's vandalism/a prank. 97.77.28.210 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

A need for cult film definition and sub-division

The definition given is probably in the least certain terms possible (i.e. "small or big group," "somewhat or highly dedicated"), that's not a definition! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.94.110 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree. I mean, a cult following page with no mention of Chuck Norris? WTF? 24.20.60.216 (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While there are certainly larger problems with this article, I think the "who is a cult figure" section should be deleted or reorganized. A cult following is a heavily subjective term, and to say the someone like Syd Barrett isn't a cult figure demonstrates how vague the label really is. I would concentrate on scholarly articles on the topic rather than user's biased definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjperen (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...?

Anecdotally, I'm pretty sure these books had a cult following long before the film derivatives were made.

Please sign your comments, but you are right. In fact several fans of the books disliked the motion picture. And besides the first book came out in '79, and the REASON for the film being made was the books/radio show/tv show/game's cult following. Doc Strange 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the books followed the radio/TV adaption, which were made from unfinished fragments of the to-be written book. Besides that, I think this is one of the worst articles on WP, defining the blurry and really content-free marketing buzzword "cult" in enormous blurriness. Should be deleted entirely.80.171.39.108 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Unknown" show?

Admittedly I don't know of Megas XLR. But umm, how can a TV show be "unknown" about. People know of its existence, especially if there's a cult following of some sort. Isn't it better to say "lesser known"? --24.227.114.106 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"serious culture"

JK Rowling is considered serious culture? Please... I even have problems with people calling LOTR serious.

I am removing unsourced claims now

I am removing every single uncited claim about any particular person, place, or thing that is cited as having a "cult following". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, the phrase "cult following" is nearly completely devoid of meaning. Does a local band with a very small band of highly dedicated followers get deemed to have a "cult following"? What if its just three people follwoing the band, are they still a cult? Or does it take 10 people to make a cult? Or is it 100 or a 1000? What about the movie Titanic, is their a "cult following"? It's the most popular movie ever (or one of them at least) so does the fact that a somewhat large portion of the public still watches the DVD every few days mean it has a "cult following"? What about President Bush or President Obama? Do they have "cult followings"?

This article is complete and utter nonsense. People, places and things have large and small fan bases and some are more or less dedicated but there is no meaning to "cult following". It's just a (small or large) group of (somewhat or highly) "dedicated" fans. This whole article appears to be the original research of a couple of individuals which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Per the policy of Wikipedia I am requesting that no uncited claims be added to this article. If you want to add any particular claim to this article about something or someone having a "cult following" then you'll need to find a reliable source and add a citation that can be verified. Vivaldi (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This phrase is used far too often on film articles

This is about the phrase "cult following" being used in excess on several pages without citing any sources, namely in articles about movies that aren't commonly considered "good" but are enjoyed by some. Please forgive me, I am a long time wikipedia reader, but this is my first post of any kind. I read the guideless, but still wasn't sure if this was the right place to post.

It makes perfect since to mention that "Star Wars" has a cult following, or "Star Trek." There are events in history, organizations, and conventions that prove the claim that they have cult followings.

But I see "cult following" used on almost every article on a movie that isn't commonly praised. Cats Don't Dance, Mars Attacks!, Barbarella, Super Mario Bros., Avengers. Personally, I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe any of these films have a "cult following."

Am I the only one noticing this? I think there's a difference between a film having a "cult following" and a film simply being enjoyed by a few people. In overusing the phrase like this, it lessens the effectiveness of the phrase when it's used on films that actually do have a cult following.

Does any one else think there should be standard guidelines as to when a film (or anything else) should be described as having a "cut following"? The intent being to remove the phrase phrase when it really doesn't ad anything to the article. For example, I mentioned "Super Mario Bros." The article states that it has a cult following since it is the first motion picture to be based on a video game. All this claim does is make me wonder "where is this cult following?" Would it not suffice to simple mention "It was the first motion picture to be based on a video game" and leave it at that? Films where there is information regarding the cult following is where the phrase needs to be used. Just for an easy example--Star Trek has a cult following and conventions. So when "cult following" is mentioned, there is information available on Wikipedia about Star Trek conventions. So when the question "where is this cult following" is raised, the reader can find the answer.

69.73.106.25 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever decides which actor is considered to be having a "cult icon" status??

This whole section with, what, five names is so eclectic that we could just as well start randomly adding any and all people there. I mean, what makes such diverse guys as Bruce Campbell and Edward Norton any different from, say, Forest Whitaker or Steve Buscemi with respect to their cult status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.123.50 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No video games list?

Why isn't there one... There should be one imo. Someone should create it please... Start with the game Ico for PS2, but there are many more of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.42.225 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see.. Do I just edit under here? First time poster. Just about every (successful) game prior to the last generation of consoles was a cult game by definition, as gaming was a nice medium. Sequels to these games mostly remain cults, while many newer game franchises are made for mainstream. The mere size of a list of cult games would justify a new article ^^ Am I breaking WP:NOT#FORUM here? Njaa (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove the 'cult icons' list/section altogether

I contest that you could insert any number of persons/groups/movements with sizeable numbers of dedicated followers. Thus this list of *supposed* icons is evidently both arbitrary and grossly incomplete - not to mention, potentially biased.

Is the notable cults section the oneyou were talking about? If so, I have removed that section as I, too, think it was a very ridiculous entry onto this article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantasia a flop in 1940?

It didn't make money on its first release, but that was more because Disney insisted on showing it with a custom sound-system installed in theaters, and because the start of WW2 cut off foreign markets, than because people didn't want to see it. There could probably be a better example... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Is it viable to have categories for cult movies, TV shows, etc.? Lachlanusername (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cult following and cult status

I think we should split the concept of a cult following from that of a cult status (currently a redirect here). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)