Talk:Cult film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Cult film is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 5, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
January 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 

Cult Following[edit]

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

References and POV concern[edit]

I flagged the film list on this article as unreferenced because there are currently no citations in that section verifying that the specific films in that list meet a consensus definition of having cult status. At best these films might appear in a list of cult films on one of the external links at the end of the article. Note though that even if a citation to a specific source is provided indicating that something is a cult film, that still leaves open point of view concerns on whether or not a specific film is "cult". It is certainly possible that a film is listed as "cult" on one critic's list, for example, but other critics do not consider it a "cult" film.

The bottom line, though, is that the list included in this article has no footnotes or citations indicating it is drawn from external, verifiable published sources. Dugwiki 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I reinserted this tag as it was removed without comment or correction. Please do not remove the unref tag until references are provided to verify that the listed films are generally considered "cult films" by the film industry. Dugwiki 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I once again had to reinsert the unreferenced tag that was removed without comment and without additional references being added to the article to very the list of films has consensus in the industry as being "cult films". Since the situation hasn't improved, and I don't like the idea of having to keep reinserting this tag, I posted asking for feedback on this section of the article at WP:Films. Eventually what needs to happen is either a) references are added to verify the films have consensus in the industry as having cult status, or b) the section should be deleted as something that is subjective and unreferenced (ie cult status is in the eye of the beholder adding it to the list). I'd recommend giving feedback and comments at that talk page so the discussion remains in one place. Thanks! Dugwiki 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help with citations on the list of cult films? I know a back issue of entertainment weekly had a list of the top 100 cult films of all time, there is also a large book called "Cult FLicks and Trash Pics" that I've read but do not have. This book is an encyclopedia of hundreds of cult films. If someone could track these down and use them for citation that would be great. Most of the films, actors, and directors that were on the lists removed from the article are in there DASA2 2:08, 13 February 2007

That's certainly a step in the right direction. However, keep in mind that in addition to the reference problem there was the issue of subjectivity. "Cult FLicks and Trash Pics" could simply be one particular author's subjective opinion on what films he feels should be considered cult films. In addition, as a more minor technical note, you have to be a little careful posting published lists because they might be copyrighted.
My best current suggestion for the moment is, if you want, to maintain the previously deleted lists on your user page instead of in the article space. That way you can add or remove films as desired without having to worry as much about objectivity. Then put a link to your user page here on the talk page so other interested editors can add to it as well. Later, down the road, if the POV and reference issues can be addressed, then you can maybe try and recreate the material in article space. Dugwiki 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my two cents - the lists should just be removed completely. Maybe eventually one simple list of commonly recognized cult films that fit the more specific definition this article needs could be added. Mondo68 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed lists of cult films, cult actors and cult directors per afd consensus[edit]

Per the afd discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult film actors, I have removed the recently recreated lists for cult films, cult actors and cult directors. Those lists are unverifiable original research and have inherent subjectivity issues (they are basically lists based almost solely on individual editors' opinions on what and who has "cult" status). Please do not recreate or revert those lists without discussing here, and the consensus appeared strong on afd that the lists were inappropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. Thanks. Dugwiki 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


By cleaning up this article and making more straightforward, fact-based, with verifiable sources, creating good cult film, cult actor, and cult director lists will be easier. But first things first, this whole thing needs to be revised Mondo68 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

that was really annoying

I really enjoyed browsing through that list

Is there any way for me to get a copy of the list of films that was there? I hadn't finished reading the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, up on the page, you can see a flag called "History", alternatively you can click on this link. If you click on the different versions, let's say one that was changed a couple of days ago, you can access the information (see that specific version). --MoRsE (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi If I remember correctly that list was on a separate page something like "list of cult movies" I can't find anything in the history so maybee its in the history for a page that has been deleted If anyone knows anything about what happened to it either the person who wrote the list or the person who deleted it any info would be much appreciated

According to my definition of a cult movie that list was spot on, I've been trying my best to buy, rent and download the films

If someone could copy and paste the list into this discussion page I can do some research and try and find citations and references for the films on the list

thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.139.253 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations and defining cult film[edit]

I have a large collection of books and magazines on the subject of cult movies and would be glad to help provide a more well-defined definition of "cult film" for this article. Mondo68 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article contains a bunch of movie guys defining and discussing cult films. I'm sure someone, perhaps even future-me, can synthesize a definition from these. Link here so I don't lose it. http://www.cineaste.com/articles/cult-film-a-critical-symposium Paulc206 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Problem of the Rocky Horror Precedent[edit]

I think a lot of the misconceptions about what "cult film" is derives from the precedent set by the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Because it has long beeen held up as a kind of prototypical example of cult, many have assumed that what made it cult was the fact that it attracted an obsessed, participatory audience. Based on that precedent, people have concluded that Star Wars is a cult film. Another aspect of RHPS that a lot of people have latched on to is the repeated viewings. Of course, in the days when RHPS was building its reputation as a cult film, repeated viewings took a lot more effort and dedication than they do today. Tarantino fanboys watch Pulp Fiction over and over, sometimes in groups, and quote lines of dialogue to each other. Because of the similarity of that behavoir to the RHPS precedent, Pulp Fiction is often mis-labeled a cult movie. I would contend that RHPS was an entirely unique phenomenon in the cult movie culture. It made its own rules, and is not especially representative of cult movies as a whole.

To me, a cult movie fan was someone who was first and foremost an avid film fanatic who searched for new and unique cinematic experiences and in the process would champion little known and underapreciated films, not watch the same handful of popular (or even semi-popular) movies over and over again.

Any thoughts?

Mondo68 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of how Rocky Horror Picture Show has often led to the misuse of the term cult film, leading people to believe that it merely means a fanatical devotion and involvement. Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, etc. shouldn't be classified as cult films. The OED defines "cult" as "fringe, non-mainstream" and having "appeal to a relatively small audience". (I have pasted the full definition at the bottom of this discussion page.) Ironically, (IMHO) RHPS long ago lost its status as a cult film once its following became so large. Proclivities (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the whole concept of cult film has survived the VCR - DVD - download evolution. One easy marker of a cult film used to be how and when one could see it. Pre-VCR, it would usually be a "midnight screening" or a rare late-night UHF showing, something that felt a bit daring or difficult. During the VCR era it might be hard to acquire, and yet desirable to a small fanbase who would often trade homemade copies or seek out rare or foreign releases. Now, well ... we may be left with simply niche films, not quite the same thing. Paulc206 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In Need of a TOTAL Re-Do[edit]

I would like to start REALLY cleaning up this article. Straightforward, fact-based, with references and verifiable sources.

Mondo68 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article appears to be pretty well written, although I have had to occasionally redelete the "lists of cult actors/directors/films" that were previously removed as being too subjective (the lists are unreferenced and very much a matter of editorial opinion). Most recently they appear to have been readded by an unregistered editor. Dugwiki 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lists should be removed.

I think the article could be much better. It kind of rambles from point to point and doesn't feel cohesive. Also there are many subjective comments and little (no?) attribution.

Mondo68 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not concur more completely. This article should be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. It is a personal, subjective, idiosyncratic, and largely ill-informed POV of what "cult" means as applied to film. Check out the OED definition below - "fringe, non-mainstream." That dictionary is the best and most general arbiter of definition in English, and by its dicta nearly none of this article is relevant to the proper use of "cult" by real film devotees, critics, and historians. Night of the Living Dead and Reefer Madness? Most certainly. But major studio releases by directors like Kubrick, Ridley Scott, Speilberg and others mentioned as cult???? 2001, Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange - these were major studio productions, major releases, much discussed at the times of their releases and ever since, and seen by tens of millions over the years. You just can't stretch the word "cult" in ANY definition to fit about 70% of what is in this article. Add to that the wretched writing noted below and you have a perfect example of why no one past high school age (unfortunately) can take Wikipedia seriously. It is just distressing to read this.Sensei48 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And where did the editor author get the idea that the term was invented (or anything other than simply employed) by Danny Peary around 1980? The term was in common usage when I was coming of age as a student of film in the 1960s, and I have books on film from the 1940s that use it extensively. Further, a quick look at Peary's nominations for films with cult status reaffirms what I said above - there are virtually no A level major studio releases among his initial examples.Sensei48 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


'Pretty well written'? This is possibly the worst article I've read on Wikipedia, on writing quality alone. It not just rambles - all over - but repeats itself (in the introduction, in various other parts), sometimes contradicts itself ("A cult film can often been widely regarded and had been successful upon its early release") and is full of vague generalizations/hand-waving. It needs to be redone for sure, at least the intro and the general overview. -76.172.41.63 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To make it a better reference for a casual visitor, a chart with the name of the movie, the year of release and the MPAA rating would be an excellent resource. 99.225.244.235 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive[edit]

This article is a bit too repetitive. It mentions obsessive followings and initial movie failure a bout 3 times in the first 15 lines. ArdClose (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Depending on Definition[edit]

The main aspect which defines a cult film, to me, is its relative obscurity, as if it were some sort of secret which only a small group of devotees knew about. It is not always that the films failed financially or were just poorly made, sometimes it is issues of distribution. And Soon the Darkness or the original version of The Wicker Man are examples of cult films, or even midnight movies, that were just never widely distributed, but developed followings after videos and DVD's became available.
I have pasted one definition of cult from the Oxford English Dictionary below:

Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence: possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult figure, cult status.

I think that this definition can help clear up what determines whether a particular film a cult film or not. However, as this heading suggests, it still depends on what one's definition is. "The Nightmare Before Christmas" or "Dr. Strangelove" may have cult followings, but IMHO, I do not consider them "cult films", mainly because there appeal is not limited "to a relatively small audience". Proclivities (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars and Star Trek may have cult followings (a few dedicated members that take it further than normal viewers and get into costumes and attend conventions) but they are not (and never will be) cult movies because they began as commercial successes. A cult film needs to start as a commercial misunderstood flop that is either too complex or too far removed from society to be popular upon release. A relatively small number of dedicated fans need to do to the grassroots evangelism needed to encourage people to give it a second chance on DVD. Esptoronto (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

picture Camping Cosmos - belgian cult movie[edit]

Why was this image removed, without warning and without mention in "history"?Karel leermans (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DonnieDarkoStill.jpg[edit]

The image Image:DonnieDarkoStill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What?[edit]

"Another example is the place of The Wizard of Oz (1939) in white American homosexual culture, although a widely viewed and historically important film in greater American culture."

Anybody have a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.152.32.92 (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No source, but they probably meant Judy Garland as gay icon.

are links forbidden to be added?[edit]

I'm trying to add www.cultreviews.com to the external links section, but apparantly it gets undone every time. Is there anything I'm missing about links? A site that covers Cult Movies is pretty relevant I thought. 81.83.108.30 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article's Talk page is a good place to put this in. If somebody can come up with a public citation referring to the website [1], it can be moved to the main page because it would then be sourced. In the meantime, leave it here if you think it will improve the main page, but just don't have a citation for it yet. In the meantime, there are a lot of people who check this out, and one of them may know of a famous celebrity (or anybody at all) who mentioned the website in public. That would be enough to make it sourced. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not correct. Mentioning a website in public by anyone does not make it a WP:RS, and a site with user-generated content such as this one will not qualify as a citable source. Sensei48 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is Repo Man?[edit]

Perhaps the greatest cult film of all time, this movie needs to be mentioned somewhere on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.150.131 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support Repo Man being a cult movie. I also noticed that Big Trouble in Little China is missing. Esptoronto (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

How about putting Sunset Boulevard as another example of Cult films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.5.12 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindi Cult films.[edit]

Rehna Hai tere Dil mein, and Hera Pheri cult films???? Care to justify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinblr (talkcontribs) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Beginning Clean-Up 4/6/09[edit]

Clearly editors have put a lot of work into creating this article, but flagrantly and I assume in good faith in violation of many, many Wiki principles too numerous to list here in their entirety. In addition to the clear violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the complete lack of sourcing for the selections of cult films, the unsourced and flat out wrong attribution of term and concept to a single writer in 1980 when both existed as early as the 1940s, and the unintentionally funny but incredibly off-base designation of some of the most influential and debated films of all time (anything by Kubrick, for starters - though there would be a much better case to be made for the relatively less-seen Paths of Glory than for landmark films recognized as such at the time of their release and ever since likeA Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey) as cult just cannot remain uncorrected unless they are sourced as such...

...and more carefully sourced than here in the article. The references for both footnotes 1 and 2 do not demonstrate what the article purports that they do, supporting instead the more commonly understood definition of the term cult. Here is what the reference to the Allmovie Guide actually says:

Generally a cult film is one that has minimal popular appeal but has a great following with a select group within the public sphere. This genre generally has a following on college campuses or late night audiences and elicits audience participation in the form of responsorial dialogue, costuming and props. [2]

This is at least oblique to and closer to contradictory to this article's attempt to include A level major studio releases (like Kubrick's) that have generated extensive attention and comment from the time of their release onward.

The AMC filmsite ref reads as follows:

Cult films have limited but very special appeal. Cult films are usually strange, quirky, offbeat, eccentric, oddball, or surreal, with outrageous, weird, unique and cartoony characters or plots, and garish sets. They are often considered controversial because they step outside standard narrative and technical conventions. They can be very stylized, and they are often flawed or unusual in some striking way.

Most cult films cut across many film genres (science fiction, horror, melodrama, etc.), although some film genres are also more prone to being cultish, such as the horror or sci-fi genres. Teen comedies are also more often rated as cult films, such as Dazed and Confused (1993), and Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), with quotable lines of dialogue, and memorable characters and scenes.

Many cult films feature or effectively showcase the performance of newcomers or other unknown talented actors/actresses. These often-obscure and cheesy films are usually made by maverick, highly individualistic film-makers with low-budget resources and little commercial marketing. And cult films are rarely, if ever, sequels, since then they would have attained mainstream appeal and widespread success. Some directors are more prone to making cult films, such as John Waters, Quentin Tarantino and David Lynch, especially early in their careers, because of their individualistic perspective and style, although they can often make a conventional 'mainstream' film too (such as David Lynch's The Straight Story (1999)). [3]

Many of the films on the list in the lede that I reverted fall in no way under either of these rubrics.

Much, much more needs to be done with this article, some of it correcting errors of fact as above and more of it having to establish an agreed-upon rubric for what does (and equally importantly does not) constitute a cult film. So....more to come. Sensei48 (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Caddyshack[edit]

Where is Caddyshack!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to think of this as a cult film - it was commercially successful and has had a very large and appreciative audience since its release. That's not "cult."Sensei48 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club?[edit]

Fight Club not only has a cult but it has a militia, it deserves a mention in the section about the newer flicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.178.145 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "militia" is precisely what makes it not a cult film. By any definition, a film with a large and devoted following - which certainly defines major release and frequently broadcast Fight Club - isn't "cult" - see the discussions above on this page. Several editors have tried repeatedly to correct the misimpression that any film that excites intense allegiance is "cult." That term as noted on this page and in the article connotes a smaller group of devotées and a much lower public profile than FC. Sensei48 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Cult film is clearly WP:Notable. User:Piano non troppo claims "The issue is that the allmovie reference provided defines term in such a way that's it's impossible to identify what is and what is not 'cult'". Many notable things are not completely unambiguous. For example, cult itself is not precisely defined, some people believe that the Falun Gong is a cult, some do not. Yet the idea of a cult is clearly notable. The reason is that there are many things we can say about "cult-like behavior". Likewise cult film is clearly notable because there are many things that we can say about cult films, they often have poor reception in theaters and then become spectacularly popular over time gaining a following that is often irrational about there love of the movie, cult-like, etc. For those who like to ref the WP:MOS, this topic has significant coverage in WP:Reliable Sources. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Style Tag[edit]

Much of this article includes truly epic awkwardnesses of phrasing and logic. At the very least, the plethora of weasely passive voice constructions (e.g., "was championed by a small number of dedicated film fanatics who seek out lesser-known offerings," "the film was given a cult status," "film has since received cult status" - many more similarly tortured constructions. Sensei48 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting movies to add to the article[edit]

If you want to suggest a movie to add to the article.... don't. Provide a citation from a reliable source that describes it as a cult film (by the definition agreed to for this article), find an appropriate place where it fits the narrative of the article, and add it there. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad article[edit]

This article is a typical example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. There's nothing but negative remarks. This is a typical example of the difference between an encylopedic definition entry and an attempt at an essay. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not a cult movie, it is a midnight movie. I can only think of a couple of examples of cult movies, Electra Glide in Blue and Buckaroo Banzai.Ncsr11 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Once a cult film, always a cult film?[edit]

I take issue with the descriptions of Blade Runner and Blue Velvet as "cult films" in some permanent sense. These were certainly "cult films" for several years after they were issued, not having done great box office, but with a strong fanbase that helped popularize these films. But after a decade or so, both of these films had attained the status of classics (and not just "cult classics"), routinely cited on critic's lists of top films, and in the case of Blade Runner, chosen by the Library of Congress for the National Film Registry. I think at that point, films with that level of success cease to be "cult films". Peter G Werner (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

Are The Chronicles of Narnia films considered cult films, or are they too popular?--72.47.89.12 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Typical garbage article[edit]

You've only been saying "this needs work" for about six years, by my estimate, and most of the responses on this talk page indicate that the bulk of the "editors" think that means, "Needs more fancruft." This has degenerated into a collection of poorly constructed sentences and fragments that convey little in the way of concrete information about the subject. It is largely a crufty example farm. The only useful information appears in the intro paragraph, and this same info with little elaboration is repeated ad infinitum throughout.

If this wasn't a useful subject for an article, I'd suggest AfD.

It needs to be gutted. Find an expert on the subject, and start over from scratch. Then lock the page before the fanbois arrive to crap it up again. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

New intro[edit]

I just rewrote the intro for List of cult films, since that article had been tagged with original research for over a year. If we expand that, I think we can use it here, too. The advantage is that it's rather highly referenced, avoiding original research. The disadvantages are that it's a bit unwieldy, with all those references; it's a bit short; and it doesn't really explain things as well as the current definition. However, I think it shouldn't be impossible to make it work. For reference, this is what I wrote:

A cult film, also commonly referred to as a cult classic, is a movie with a cult following, obscure or unpopular with mainstream audiences, and often revolutionary or ironically enjoyed.[1][2] Sometimes, the definition is expanded to exclude films that have been released by major studios or have big budgets,[3] try specifically to become cult films,[4] or become accepted by mainstream audiences and critics.[5] Cult movies are defined as much by audience reaction as they are content.[6]

Here are the references:

  1. ^ Haigh, Ian. "What Makes a Cult Film?". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 17 April 2013. 
  2. ^ Dirks, Tim. "Cult Films". Filmsite.org. AMC Networks. Retrieved 19 April 2013. 
  3. ^ Dowling, Dowling. "When a cult film's not a cult film". BBC News. Retrieved 19 April 2013. 
  4. ^ "Cult Cinema: A Critical Symposium". Cineaste magazine, Winter 2008, Volume 34, No.1, cited on The Official Home of Joe Bob Briggs. Retrieved on 19 April 2013.
  5. ^ Miller, Brian. "Stephen Tobolowsky". Seattle Weekly. Retrieved 20 April 2013. 
  6. ^ Aftab, Kaleem. "Scholar devises equation for determining a cult film". The Independent. Retrieved 20 April 2013. 

Any ideas on how we can expand on this, so that it's not so short? Ideas on how to define what is and isn't a cult film? After this, I figure we can move on to pruning the comprehensive list of cult movies from this article, since we've already got List of cult films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should keep the intro – for now, at least – and work on getting rid of the example farm. We can use what I wrote, as an intro paragraph, and source some statements about the history of cult films, while getting rid of the vast list of examples. I think I pretty much comprehensively filled out the list (maybe a bit too comprehensively, now that I think about it), so I'm going to delete the example farm here and try to come up with some references on history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I very much like what you're doing with the article, and the removal of the example farm also took out some really poor writing, especially the wildly inappropriate passive verbs ("was granted cult status" and the like). I have one observation, though - your edit follows the template of the original article in suggesting that cult films some how evolved into existence during or after the 1960s. That theory seems to follow some of the recentist sources who primary shortcoming is a lack of historical perspective. There were plenty of films from the 1920s on, during the peak era of Hollywood production when the studios released about three times more movies in a given year than they do today, that were genuine cult films - but the term to describe them thus did not exist. I don't want to go into the article and mess up the edit before it is stable and completed, but the opening sentence of "Genera Overview" needs refining and clarification - with sourcing, of course. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I know what you mean. Most sources certainly do have a rather recentist slant, and it's difficult to find something that goes further back than the 1970s, much less earlier than the 1960s. My first draft was more of a complete rewrite, with a history that went back to the early days (1910s through 1930s), but I was having trouble finding reliable sources, and I didn't want to resort to turning this article back into a mountain of original research. In the end, I abandoned that, and I decided to simply reword and reorganize the current article. I'm not sure it was the right decision, but I'm finally making some progress on a rewrite, which is certainly an improvement over letting it sit in its previous state. I can try to fit in some early history, but everyone wants to talk about The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Big Lebowski. Nobody really wants to talk about the early days. I'll try to find some better sources, though. This would probably be easier if I had some of Peary's books or some other authority, but I'm working off of Google searches, mostly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What's still missing?[edit]

Does anyone have any suggestions about major topics that the article is missing? There are still a few topics that I'd like to cover, but I think the basic skeleton is there. I touched on the various controversies over the definition of a cult film, and I think that section can be expanded quite a lot, given how vocal and opinionated some people are. Whether a cult film can lose its status deserves its own section, in my opinion. Blade Runner seems a good example, but there are many others. Also, I think the influence of 70s exploitation should perhaps be expanded. I've found some feminist essays critical of transgressive exploitation in cult films, which I think might be topical. Finally, I've been meaning to discuss non-American films, but I just haven't gotten around to it, yet. There's lots of information out there on Asian, European, and Australian cult films, but I'm not sure where to put it: should they have their own sections or should it be integrated?

There's lots of stuff to talk about, but I'm never quite sure how much to say, and how much of it is relevant. I've found some interesting sources on Google Books, and I intend on browsing through them for interesting quotations. If they intrigue me enough, I might try to find them locally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think I covered all the issues I had, though it's still admittedly very USA-centric. I'm going to put the article up for peer review, since I'm not getting much feedback here. Anyone is welcome to contribute, but I hope that people will avoid turning it back into a mess of original research.
I've been watching the progress of your edits and cannot say enough about the job that you have done. You have turned what was a poorly-written POV passive-voice-infected mess into a fine article. There might be a few minor changes I would suggest and perhaps a point of punctuation or two, but the energy, thoroughness, and professionalism you have brought to this deserve commendation. If I can figure out how to award a barnstar, you'll get the first from me in my seven years on Wikipedia. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Simply visit Ninja's talk page, and click on the love heart button at the top right of the page. Select your barnstar, and follow the instructions.  drewmunn  talk  21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, my punctuation and grammar are usually pretty good, but I got a bit lazy in a few spots. Also, there are still a few sentences that make me cringe, due to poor flow, but it's just a matter of basic copy editing. You can tell there are a few places where I simply got too tired to reword my first draft. If nobody else gets to it, I'll finally fix it, myself. Thank you for your kind words, and I hope others find this article as informative. I'm hoping to get it back to Good Article status some time soon, especially if the peer review goes well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I went from big paragraphs to smaller paragraphs... and then went back to big paragraphs. I think I'm satisfied with big paragraphs. Small paragraphs just look too choppy. I've been studying B movie, and they seem to have standardized in big, beefy paragraphs, with occasional smaller ones. If it's good enough for a Featured article, then it's good enough for me. I've also been thinking about adding a sidebar – not just because B movie has one, but because I think it might be helpful. However, I'm not sure how useful it would be, given cult film, cult video game, and cult following are rather niche topics, and most of them already link to each other rather prominently. Still, it might be something to think about, especially if other cult topics (such as cult TV shows) were ever added. Besides that, I think the article is starting to need copy editing more than it needs more information. Still, I think there's a lot of room for expansion, if I can get my hands on some more academic sources. The problem is that I don't want to turn this article into some kind of dry, academic treatise that's only understandable after getting a college degree. I'll see about trying to the library or bookstore this weekend. I've been meaning to grab a few promising sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it should be obvious that I've been adding citations from Defining Cult Movies. I've also got Cult Cinema on the way. There's another book or two that I've been thinking about getting, as well. I followed through with an older idea, giving Transgression and Censorship its own subheading. I moved in some relevant paragraphs, but they might need a little work before they're 100% relevant. I glossed over some of the issues of transgression and censorship, so as not to unnecessarily highlight them, but now that these paragraphs are specifically in a Transgression section, those issues may need to be highlighted. Also, it probably makes sense to at least mention the Video Nasty controversy in the UK, the cannibal boom, and golden age of exploitation, given their historical importance to cult films. However, I don't want to end up summarizing every article about film censorship. A single paragraph discussing all these issues should be more than enough. I hate getting bogged down by specifics, as is probably evident.
Honestly, that Ernest Mathijs essay was so full of academic jargon, I'm not entirely sure I summarized it correctly. Here's one problem passage: "Opposing and topicalizing Shivers may make it culturally important, but it does not make it a cult film. This also requires using the contextual 'controversial references' on a textual level as well." I think I get it, but I've had to re-read it several times. Mathijs later concludes: "The most important conclusion to draw from this is that topicality and controversy are crucial mechanisms in the creation of cult in critical reception. Topicality allows textual references to play a contextual role, and by picking out references that have controversial potential (discordant resonance in culture), critics knowingly or unwillingly use different kinds of topicality (regional and critical) and explicit and implicit references to reception within their arguments to create a cult reputation." That's better, but I'm still not sure that I agree. I'm trying to summarize something that uses lots of jargon, arguing for something that doesn't make logical sense to me. I mean, on some level, it does make sense (controversial and transgressive films become cult films when the critics hate them and discuss them to death), but I'm not sure how all this critical controversy alone is supposed to make a film a cult classic. I'm worried that I might not be doing his arguments justice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I made some minor adjustments to the Mathijs and Feasy summaries, which I think makes them a bit clearer and more neutral. I also increased the international scope, though it's still very USA-centric in spots, and it mainly reflects my own interests in international cinema. Part of the problem is that even European sources are heavily biased in favor of American films and film history. It's difficult to find a source that discusses European or Asian films, and I've yet to find anything that even mentions Latin America or Bollywood.
Unfortunately, the article is beginning to read like a pseudo-Marxist, Cultural Studies academic paper, which I originally hadn't intended. I'll see what I can do about that. The article probably needs some more varied perspectives. Some of the paragraphs also need to be rewritten for conciseness, clarity, and flow. I've been avoiding that for a while now. Editing one's own prose is neither easy nor exciting, and it's much more fun to add new content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that I minimized the Cultural Studies bias and toned down a lot of the more blatantly Marxist rhetoric. At the same time, I think that I've kept the spirit of the sources (if not their polemical nature). I did extensive copy editing, but there might be a few embarrassing errors left (or introduced). Since I made a few citations to wordpress/blogspot, I figured I explain it here. The first one is Jeffrey Sconce's blog on blogspot.com, quoting his article in Cineaste. The other is Intensities, a peer-reviewed journal hosted on wordpress.com. I hope the fact that it's published on wordpress.com isn't a problem, but I only quoted one article from it. Speaking of which, I've found a few more online film journals (and www.academia.edu, which has some relevant essays archived/hosted), but it may take me a little while to scour their archives for relevant articles. Plus, I'm starting to get choosier; I think the article is getting too long to continue indiscriminately adding everything that I find. I'm trying to focus my attention on expanding the shorter sections, but many articles focus on transgression. I'm making progress on including more non-American films, directors, and sources, but there's still much to be done. Also, I've consciously tried to be more specific, so that the article isn't entirely made of generalizations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel like I'm writing a blog. Regardless, I've always felt that talk page discussions should follow major changes to an article. Also, this is technically a follow-up to previous posts. Anyway, I did a partial rewrite on the Subculture section. I've always hated that section, and I wanted to get around to doing this for a long time. I hope nobody was growing attached to it. In particular, I wanted to excise that growing list of examples and combine the two paragraphs that were essentially restating the same thesis. I've finally done so, and I think it works much better now. I might have gone a bit overboard in describing cult blockbusters, but I think the concept ties in nicely to some of the debates in Definitions. There's more that I could have added, but I think it was too technical and academic, and we're already on the verge of hitting the point where the article is too technical/academic. Or maybe we've already passed that point, and I'm in denial. Well, anyway, we're up to ~8000 words. I was going to try to add another section (or, at least, a paragraph) about whether cult films can lose their status, but it's hellish trying to find a reliable source that discusses it. This might be a topic of discussion that exists only in fan circles. However, it might be for the best, as the article is probably too long to fit any more major topics. I still haven't received Cult Cinema, even though I ordered it a month ago. Maybe Mathijs and Sexton will discuss it. Does anyone here have access to back issues of film journals or magazines? I can't bring myself to pay $25-$100 for a single stupid back issue. I'd rather just keep quoting Google Books and free journals, like Scope. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

B class assessment[edit]

First off, I would like to congratulate User:NinjaRobotPirate for completely turning around this article. It is intelligently written and has wide coverage of the topic, so I have absolutely no issues about assessing it as B-class article.

However, I have one suggestion and one criticism as an editor. I think Cult film#Mainstream popularity would work better as the final chapter of the article: the transgression and fandom chapters are essentially discussing the form and characteristics of cult films, whereas the mainstream popularity section basically discusses the mainstream appropriation of cult film and the manufacturing of the cult phenomenon; it would work better as a conclusion to the article IMO, but this is just a suggestion not a request. As for the criticism, I find the "camp classics" chapter rather weak in relation to the other sections. Unlike the other sections which are tightly written and engaging and cut to the chase, I find this chapter to be a bit "waffly" and adopting more of an essay style tone, and it doesn't seem to add a whole lot to the understanding of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Looking over that section again, I agree with your criticism. Most of the other sections have been rewritten a few times, but that one has received comparatively less attention. Your idea about moving Mainstream popularity is good. I had thought of moving it, but I couldn't decide where; now it seems obvious. Also, I think the lead is probably too short, but I've been reluctant to properly expand it. If it seems long enough to you, then I may just leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There is good stuff in that final chapter, but it's all a bit unfocused and undisciplined. It's a good article, and it's one section away from being a great article. Basically in that section you are discussing one particular class of cult movies, but I think the film theory 101 needs to go and it should widen the net to consider cult movies as class of films in general: the "so bad it's good" movies are one particular type of film after all; you have musicals, nostalgia movies, genre classics like manga etc. So the way I see the structure of this article is that you have your definition, your general overview, and then you discuss form in the transgressive section, the various characterstics of cult movies in the fandom section, and then maybe discuss cult as a class of films in the next section to bring all the disparate concepts and theories from the previous two sections into something cogent that the reader can relate to. The commercialisation of cult works as a fitting conclusion, because you track its evolution from a social phenomenon to that of a marketable product. As for the length of the lede I don't think it's really a problem; it is servicable as it is, but could perhaps be improved if the emphasis was on summarising the article rather than as an introduction to the topic. When I write ledes, I see it as an exercise in completely rewriting the article in a couple of hundred words or so, but there no serious problems with it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good. The original article only discussed camp, and I went with it. So, instead of just discussing camp, melodrama, and bad films, we'd discuss everything that falls under the cult film banner? We could move some of the examples from throughout the article here, such as the cannibal boom, "unpopular genres" paragraph, and J-Horror, unless you think that they fit better in their current place. I'm not sure; exploitation and horror may very well be best discussed in the transgression section and skipped over in this "types of cult films" section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Types of cult films[edit]

I've got a few questions and issues about this new section:

  • Is there an appreciable difference between midnight movies and mindfuck films? Certainly, not all of the weird and inscrutable cult films are midnight movies, but enough of them are that I think there doesn't really need to be a separate subsection on weird/mindfuck cult films. On the other hand, I think that I could have more explicitly highlighted the weirdness quotient of midnight movies. I'd appreciate feedback on both issues, but I'm mostly satisfied with the status quo.
  • The animation subsection in particular leaves me a bit frustrated. I thought it would be easier to find insightful, reliable sources that discuss such a popular topic, but it turned out to be time-consuming and tedious wading through all of the simplistic exclamations of the awesomeness of anime and attractiveness of Taarna. I debated including family-friendly Disney/Pixar/Don Bluth films, but I ultimately rejected them as too mainstream. Do they count as cult blockbusters? What about Fantasia? I actually did do some searches on Fantasia, but I gave up after being overwhelmed by poor results. I'll try again.
  • I don't know if I made my case well enough for art, exploitation, and B movies to be combined like that. I had wanted to talk about the influence of exploitation films on cult cinema for quite a while, but when I actually got a chance to do so, I couldn't find any sources that really thrilled me. Instead, I settled for what I had: several sources that already discussed the intersection of art and exploitation, as it concerns cult films. I could have made individual subsections for horror, science fiction, and martial arts, but it was easier to combine them with exploitation and art films – and I suspect that readers will appreciate a bit of conciseness in this extremely long article.
  • The other sections might be a bit weak, too, but I think they're OK for first drafts, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Ideas for other "types":
  • Musicals. I was a little reluctant to add this, after having already discussed several musicals, but then I realized that I did the same thing with Heavy Metal: it's both an animated cult film and midnight movie. Thus, I see no reason why I shouldn't also discuss Rocky Horror as a musical. This would be a good place to cite that Scope article about beach party musicals. Also, Singin' in the Rain and The Sound of Music, maybe. I hear they've acquired prominent cult followings. I'm not really into musicals, so I'd appreciate any help in this area – even if it's just to suggest films that I forgot. Oh, Elvis and Beatles musicals might be appropriate, too. Jeff Sconce says they are, at least. And he's got a PhD, so I guess he knows better than me.
  • Non-fiction. Propaganda films, government hygiene films, and "mondo" documentaries. I'm thinking this might just be a catchall for anything weird that doesn't fit in the other categories, as long as it claims to be non-fiction. Possible inclusions include Mr. B Natural, Faces of Death, and Reefer Madness. It shouldn't be too difficult to populate this subsection; I've talked around this subject a few times and accumulated several applicable sources.
  • Softcore pornography. Sconce says it counts. Emmanuelle, Lady Chatterley's Lover, and... I don't know. I'll have to do more research on this topic, I guess. Maybe Fred Olen Ray and Jim Wynorski belong here. I hate them both with a passion, but they have cult followings. Early Troma films (pre-Toxie) might go here, too.
  • Gore / splatter / sick films. Traditionally separated from mere horror films, these are the grossest of the gross and are almost universally banned. Cannibal Holocaust, Make Them Die Slowly, Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, and viral videos like 2 Girls 1 Cup. Could be combined with horror films, if there's consensus to do so. I was originally opposed to doing so, but I'm starting to think that it would make writing the subsection easier, because I could just segue from mainstream horror comedies to gore to sick films. It would also decrease the amount of writing that I need to do on each subject.
  • Fantasy and science fiction. I'm reluctant to move them out of Exploitation/Art, but if horror gets its own category, then maybe I should just give in. I think this may simply be too many categories, however. Maybe I should try to prune the paragraphs down to half the average size so that people aren't overwhelmed. It would also mean that I need to come up with less filler when I can't find something insightful to say.
Finally, I'm really not sure what to do about pictures! I think I might just de-link that big poster of Plan 9. If I don't de-link it, then I'm going to have to put a picture in every single subsection, and I don't think anyone wants that. Also, I think I might just remove all those "see also:" and "main article:" links. I don't think they're doing anything useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess things like horror and musical are essentially genre cult classics when it comes down to it i.e. they have become classics due to a specific set of genre tropes. I don't think it needs to be refined any further than that, otherwise you risk repeating what is covered in the above sections. Maybe you can briefly cover the array of genres in this section? I also agree we don't need an image for each sub-section either. Good work, the article looks great. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Thief and the Cobbler[edit]

An editor has recently been determined to insert coverage of The Thief and the Cobbler at this article (see [4], [5], [6]). There are two problems I have with the recent edits:

  • The quality of the sourcing: of the sources used to actually back the claim it is a cult film, [7] doesn't back up the claim, [8] looks like an WP:SPS source and [9] is a dead link. Simply put, the sourcing doesn't come up to scratch IMO and looks a lot like an editor scratching around looking for anything that will back up his POV rather than summarising the published consensus. Many books have been written about cult films, so if a reputable book cannot be found to back up the claim then we must entertain the notion that the opinion is WP:FRINGE.
  • Secondly, there is also the issue of WP:WEIGHT i.e. just because something is a cult film doesn't mean it has to be listed here. We have List of cult films for that. This article is covering types of cult film and the namechecks (usually iconic cult films such as Blade Runner) are carefully chosen to highlight a particular aspect of the cult phenomenon. It is not a coatrack for simply reeling off the history of your favorite cult film.

Basically it appears like POV pushing to me. I have reverted the editor once so I would like some further opinions before doing so again. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The material has been appropriately reverted. None of the sources included reach the level of RS: they are blogs and fan sites.Sensei48 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'm starting to lose patience. This article used to be a complete mess, and there were quite a few calls on the talk page for a complete rewrite. The biggest problems were a lack of solid sourcing, original research, namechecking individual films, and undue emphasis. This seems like a return to that style. I see no problem with a single sentence summary if a reliable source discusses it, but there's no place for a detailed history of the troubled production of an individual film. Unless, perhaps, we're talking about Jodorowsky's Dune, and even that could probably be distilled down into one or two sentences by a determined minimalist. Normally, I'd say, "Hey, let's start up a new paragraph about unfinished epics!", but this article is already way too long, and it's a wonder that nobody has tagged it for a split yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, on the size issue it is right up at the upper bound of acceptable. The readable prose is 60k and 9,000 words long. WP:LENGTH recommends splitting once readable prose exceeds 60k/10,000 words, so at the moment it is just about within its limits, but obviously there isn't much room for growth. I would be against splitting at this point because I'm one of those people who hates having content scattered across half a dozen articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Remaining issues before Good Article nomination[edit]

I've been thinking about this for a little while now, and I think the article is close to ready for good article nomination. Here are the remaining issues:

  • I've now got access to JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library. I can finally reference those Cineaste articles directly. The problem is that JSTOR is subscription-only. Should I replace the republished links with direct links to JSTOR? As a courtesy to readers, I think perhaps not. Will the use of self-hosted articles be an issue at GAN? For example, Joe Bob Briggs has his interview from Cineaste hosted at his own home page, and that's what I'm currently linking to.
  • Now that I've got access to JSTOR, I can add even more information to the article! But I probably shouldn't. Any thoughts? I think there's probably enough room for another couple hundred words before it becomes critical to disconnect my keyboard. This is an incredibly interesting topic, and I think there's always more to say. However, I suspect that casual readers will vehemently disagree with me. I've already seen people's eyes widen when they see how long the introduction is.
  • Does the article need further copy editing? I think I fixed most of my lazy writing. I can call in the Guild of Copy Editors if necessary. My initial drafts were admittedly quite rough, but I've rewritten most of the sections several times now.
  • Does the article need another peer review? The last one didn't really accomplish much, but tradition seems to say that you do a peer review before GAN.
  • One remaining content question that has bothered me for a while (that might be answered in a peer review) is whether the article is heavily biased toward the United States. Honestly, it's not my fault. At least half of my sources are from outside the US, but they still focus heavily on American culture. I used to have a source that even discussed this, but I lost it.
  • One or two of the sources are a bit weak. When I started writing the article, I wasn't nearly as much of a hardliner on certain issues, and I let in a couple sources that now make me cringe, such as a master's thesis posted to a fanzine. I'll see about replacing that with a better source. I already found a Cineaste article that looks comparable. I haven't read it yet, though.

I haven't been too chatty on the talk page lately, but that's partly because whenever I start to write a message like this, I think to myself, "Why are you discussing this? Just be bold and make the edit." However, I think these issues may need actual discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

To address your points:
  • If you can reference the articles directly then you should do so. There is no obligation to provide free access to readers. Magazine/journal articles hosted on personal websites/blogs could cause a copyright concern in a GA assessment.
  • I would say the article length is at the limit of what is tolerable. It is currently 9,500 words of readable prose and the recommended limit per WP:SIZE is 10,000 words. I think material should only be added to the article if it is crucial at this stage. If you have substantial further content that may be of interest to readers then you should consider placing it in a sub-article.
  • A bias isn't always the product of editorial bias. Cult movies tend to be a product of pop culture, and from my own viewing experiences the American film industry has more popular culture leanings than say the artistic inclinations of European cinema. That's not to say such bias can't be addressed, but it doesn't really jump out at me as a problem. If there are comparable examples in European and Asian film then some of that can replace the American stuff, but it is only worth doing if they are genuinely comparable: there is no value in ditching Eraserhead for something that doesn't have the same cachet.
  • I wouldn't bother with copy-editing or a peer review for a GA review. A GA rating doesn't require the Queen's English, it just has to be competently written, and peer reviews are more aimed at getting articles FA ready. The article has been assessed as B class by the designated project so it obviously has no major deficiences. A GA reviewer will often allow a few days for minor fixes.
Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I removed the links to republished copies and substituted them with subscription-only links to JSTOR. I've tried to keep the article general and concise, but it's difficult when you're talking about a wide-ranging topic. There's an immense amount of scholarship and popular press on this topic, and it could probably be expanded indefinitely. I suppose there comes a time when you need to say, "It's done." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cult film/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article anime fandom deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead doesn't need citations, as the statements are already cited in the article per WP:CITELEAD. I created a redirect for anime fandom that redirects to the proper article. You're right about the MPAA X rating; it's ambiguous to non-Americans. However, simply being X rated is enough to provoke outrage, as that rating was almost exclusively reserved for hardcore pornography. The particulars of why it was rated X (and the associated controversies) are better off discussed in that film's article, I think; it would be undue emphasis to discuss such things here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I was wrong. It wasn't too difficult to insert a bit about Fritz '​s controversy. By the way, the captions are cited where appropriate. If you look at the article, the statements are already cited in the body. The captions merely reiterate what the article body says. Where they don't, they are properly cited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
At the time Fritz the Cat was released, porno chic was not yet occurring and X wasn't inherently associated with pornography. See for example Midnight Cowboy, Clockwork Orange, etc. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@The lad searches the night for his newts: I think the issue has been resolved, as the Wikipedia article now more closely adheres to what the source says. A discussion of MPAA X ratings and "porno chic" is off-topic both here and in the main article. Not sure where you're going with this. Try looking at the Good Article criteria and raise any issues that you see. This is not a peer review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Image: File:The_Creatures_of_the_Night.jpg is a copyrighted image by Olin Mills studio and cannot be used on Wikipedia. I don't even understand why Commons allowed it as that is pretty much Flickr washing the license...but the image clearly shows the copyright registration.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The copyright issues that you've raised are certainly problematic. I guess I shouldn't blindly trust in the Commons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment[edit]

The rest of the GA review attempts by The lad searches the night for his newts have long since been closed, as they weren't being based on standard GA criteria. As Mark Miller feels he shouldn't take over this review, the nomination has been returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention from a competent reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cult film/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Due to the size of this article, I expect my review will not be complete for several days. Freikorp (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Just confirming: "Thus, fandom can keep the mainstream at bay while defining themselves in terms of the 'the Other'". Is 'the Other' supposed to link to the 1972 film? Or was it supposed to link to the philosophical page - Other? If it's supposed to go to the film page I don't understand the reference, though that may be because I haven't seen said movie.
    Good catch. I made it even more obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. I probably wouldn't have found it confusing if 'the Other' had of linked to anything other than an article about a low budget film haha. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    You consistently do not introduce critics and commentators, i.e "Jacob deNobel states that films can be perceived..." Who is Jacob and what makes his opinion notable? Sure I can hover over the reference and see the source is the 'Carroll County Times', but i've previously been told to either credit the author and the source in the prose, i.e 'Writing in the Carroll County Times, Jacob deNobel stated', or give the person a title so the reader can understand why their opinion should be valued, i.e 'Academic / Journalist / Film critic Jacob deNobel states...' To be fair, while this does make for better reading, i'm not actually sure if there is an actual guideline on this. Your thoughts?
    In the earliest drafts, it was even more haphazard, and I guess I never really got around to fixing it; I know who they are, so when I proofread the article, it never struck me that I might have to explain it to other people. Later on, it became a part of my writing habit to always include this information, and I agree that it was an oversight not to include it here. I think I got everything, but it's a looong article. As is probably obvious, I extensively quoted several academics. I've attempted to remind readers who they are between the long sections, but I don't think it's necessary to be so specific that I identify Ernest Mathijs as a professor every time I quote him. I could however mention that's a professor at the University of British Columbia, I suppose, but that seems a bit trivial and unimportant. I could also name the academic journals and titles of books more often, but I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary. If it seems relevant to do so, then I can be more explicit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    It could be considered helpful to remind readers, and I don't have a problem with this, but I don't think it's necessary. In my first article to be promoted to featured status I was told to simply introduce each academic / journalist, and from thereon I actually just referred to them by their last names. Freikorp (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think it's common knowledge that Jar Jar Binks drew criticism on the grounds of racism. Accordingly, I feel the sentence "Jar Jar Binks, for example, is rejected not because of racial stereotyping but because he represents mainstream appeal and marketing" may confuse readers. Consider rewording along the lines of 'Jar Jar Binks' character drew criticism for racial stereotyping, but he only drew criticism from cult fans as he was believed to represent mainstream appeal and marketing', and/or wikilinking a phrase like 'drew criticism for racial stereotyping' to the 'Allegations of racial caricature' sub-section at his article.
    It's amusing, but perhaps I unintentionally demonstrated that section by assuming previous knowledge of the controversy. The chapter itself is interesting, and I wish I could have given it more attention. But that's a topic for cult following. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    B and genre films: 'B films', which redirects to 'B movie', is wikilinked in the third sentence. 'Genre films', which also redirects to 'B movie' is wikilinked in the fourth sentence. Considering they both link to the same article, the later link should be removed; an explanation of what a genre film is provided anyway.#::: I was aware of that, but I figured it was a "redirect with possibilities". However, you're right; it's probably not worth confusing readers with two links to the same article in short order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    "Sick film" is provided in inverted commas twice, yet no explanation of the term is given. What is a sick film? #::: I talked around it a few times, but I guess I never really got around to providing a formal definition. It's more explicitly defined now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    It was easy enough to figure out, but the acronym 'MST3K' is never actually explained. I tried adding the abbreviation after the term, as is common procedure, but then on preview I thought it looked silly when the acronym appears for the second and last time only nine words later. Consider rewording somehow. #::: That was more a degree of laziness than anything else. I simply removed the second acronym and rephrased the sentence so that it's hopefully obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Spot checks find no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Good. I improved a few minor things myself as I read the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Reference checks finds 3 dead links and 23 redirects: [10]
    A lot changes in 1.5 years. It was a bit of drudgery, but I think I got everything. The TCM.com URL causes an error in the checklinks script; it's live but reported as a 404. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Referencing format is consistent and acceptable.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Article is not lacking any inline citations.
    C. No original research:
    Article is free or original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    You've clearly sufficiently covered every aspect of this article. More importantly content is very relevant and well-written, and does not go into unnecessary detail; nothing strikes me as needing to be trimmed in particular. While it would be possible to remove a couple hundred words from each section without compromising a significant amount of the article's integrity, and there could be an argument to do this on the grounds of the attention span of readers (I found the need to take a break in between reading the entire article myself) I don't see any violation of the good article criteria here.
    B. Focused:
    At 9158 words of readable prose, this fits within the size guideline of 10,000 words per WP:SIZE. While each sections obviously contains a considerable amount of information, no section is given a disproportionate size in comparison to the others.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No obvious bias. Nominator discusses whether or not he has unintentionally biased this article towards American film's on Articles talk page, though I agree with the response there that "bias isn't always the product of editorial bias"; America simply does have more popular culture leanings.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No significant edit warring found in past 1000 edits.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No issues with any other these images.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images have relevance and appropriate captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I've passed the article now, well done. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)