Originally posted by exanda kane
Then the definition is flawed. Star Wars/Trek case in point.
Just because you can't understand the definition or chose not to except the definition does not mean it is flawed. AGAIN ; don't just take the literal definitions of "cult" and "classic" examine them separately , smash them together then equate the compounded definitions to that of a “cult classic”.
So you want to call SW a cult classic. Why? So you can secure for yourself a self-appointed place among the artistic movie buffs, to hide the fact you like main stream movies and want to be taken seriously as a film lover? Is that why you stoop to lame debates about semantics? Get yourself out of low esteem mode and accept the fact that you like films that are fairly mainstream and has a large and loyal fan base. There's no shame in that.
Originally posted by queeq
So you want to call SW a cult classic. Why? So you can secure for yourself a self-appointed place among the artistic movie buffs, to hide the fact you like main stream movies and want to be taken seriously as a film lover? Is that why you stoop to lame debates about semantics? Get yourself out of low esteem mode and accept the fact that you like films that are fairly mainstream and has a large and loyal fan base. There's no shame in that.
Simplisticly, I first replied to a post saying SW was not a cult classic, because it was a mainstream production. That's a suspect way of defining a "cult classic" as films like Star Trek and Escape from New York also done very well at the Box Office, were mainstream productions and still have cult followings.
I could say alot more about your misconceptions on me, but I don't think it would solve anything. I garner my own opinion and I will express it.
Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Just because you can't understand the definition or chose not to except the definition does not mean it is flawed. AGAIN ; don't just take the literal definitions of "cult" and "classic" examine them separately , smash them together then equate the compounded definitions to that of a “cult classic”.
I understand you choose to go by the definition, which is fine, bland, but fine nonetheless, but you seem to imply that the definition is flawless, which it isn't.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Simplisticly, I first replied to a post saying SW was not a cult classic, because it was a mainstream production. That's a suspect way of defining a "cult classic" as films like Star Trek and Escape from New York also done very well at the Box Office, were mainstream productions and still have cult followings.I could say alot more about your misconceptions on me, but I don't think it would solve anything. I garner my own opinion and I will express it.
I wouldn't call taht a cult following, more a geek following.
Look, can we not agree Queeq, that the term "cult classic" is a subjective term? A cult film site (which I found in a link that was posted) seems to also have encountered this problem and have there own definition.
The site deinition is...
"The cult movie is hard to define, but in general, The Spinning Image definition is any film that has a following beyond casual moviegoers. Of course, the reasons for this can change with every film, with the cult appeal stemming from a piece of music or example of special effects to an outrageous ending."
Star Wars fits into this definition. It has a following that goes beyond the casual moviegoers; Star Wars has many motifs such as the twist, the music and the B-movie style, all which give it an undisputed cult appeal.
However, that being said, what I see as a flaw in the definition is that it is very, very vague, and pretty much allows any movie to be considered a cult film; from Lord of the Rings, The Matrix to Spiderman, all of which have followings beyond that of the usual audience.
It all depends if you want a restricted definition, with a few exceptions (which you can't deny, cases in point are those in discussion) or a very vague definition that accomodates those exceptions better, but also allows for pretty much any film to qualify.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Look, can we not agree Queeq, that the term "cult classic" is a subjective term? A cult film site (which I found in a link that was posted) seems to also have encountered this problem and have there own definition.The site deinition is...
"The cult movie is hard to define, but in general, The Spinning Image definition is any film that has a following beyond casual moviegoers. Of course, the reasons for this can change with every film, with the cult appeal stemming from a piece of music or example of special effects to an outrageous ending."
Star Wars fits into this definition. It has a following that goes beyond the casual moviegoers; Star Wars has many motifs such as the twist, the music and the B-movie style, all which give it an undisputed cult appeal.
However, that being said, what I see as a flaw in the definition is that it is very, very vague, and pretty much allows any movie to be considered a cult film; from Lord of the Rings, The Matrix to Spiderman, all of which have followings beyond that of the usual audience.
It all depends if you want a restricted definition, with a few exceptions (which you can't deny, cases in point are those in discussion) or a very vague definition that accomodates those exceptions better, but also allows for pretty much any film to qualify.
Sure it's subjective. I agree there. But the term always made sense to me when it came down to films that were ignored by the large audience, got slashed by the critics and YET had an unusual following and consequently grew to appreciation by somehwat larger audiences and critics alike in time. Far from being the only one, Blade Runner is one of the best known examples for a cult film. Basically because of those terms.