Can a Blockbuster Movie Also Be a "Cult Classic"?

On Twitter, the AMC theaters account keeps calling the 1984 "Ghostbusters" a "cult classic".

I said this is wrong. "Ghostbusters" was the 2nd highest grossing film in the US released in 1984, as it barely lost to "Beverly Hills Cop".

"Ghostbusters" was an immediate hit and a pop culture sensation.

In other words, the opposite of a cult classic.

If "Ghostbusters" is a cult classic, then so are "Jaws" and "Star Wars" and "Jurassic Park".

Thoughts?

 

I guess it is a matter of time...
Let's take Back to the Future, when it came out it was a huge hit (like the ones you listed above) ,a blockbuster.
Now after a few decades I guess we could call it a cult classic.
In my opinion the general take is that the movies that survive the wheel of time classify as cult classics

 

Someone at AMC marketing thought that was a cool term to hype the old movie being shown in theaters. Or they are throwing that out to bait for some reaction from nitpicky fans, to increase “engagement” and push the post up in the algorithms. That’s why social media accounts post stuff like, “I bet you can’t name a color that has the letter ‘a’”. When people can’t help but respond, it increases the “engagement” on the post and pushes the post and account up in the feed.

 

Not sure, but I think one of the prerequisites of a "cult classic" is that it had to be more or less a box-office flop when it came out, then gradually built a following among the weirdos.

 

Doesn't necessarily need to be a crowd of weirdos or a true flop, but the movie does need to be "underappreciated" when first released.

Which ain't "Ghostbusters"!

 

No.

 

I disagree. By this notion, "Gone with the Wind" is a "cult classic". As is "Star Wars".

Some movies are too successful to be "cult classics".

Could you argue that movies that were commercial hits in the era but later largely forgotten are "cult classics"?

Maybe, but as mentioned above, I think it's a tough argument - and it's a non-argument when the film remains active in the mass public consciousness.

Like "Ghostbusters" or "Back to the Future".

"Cult classic" implies they're only known to a small segment of the population, whereas they remain famous.

 

I'd say it could if it's old enough -- Ghostbusters and Star Wars would qualify -- as long as there are decent sized groups of people that watch it over and over. If it's still in the public consciousness, I'd say no, but Ghostbusters is over 35 years old and Star Wars is close to 45. The Marvel movies would be too new and who knows if people will be watching those over and over in 25-30 years.

 

It all depends on definitions of course, but I would suggest "Bladerunner", "The Matrix" and yes "Star Wars".

It can also imply a fanatical i.e. cult following, which all the above have. Also "Fight Club", if "Ghostbusters" is a blockbuster then "Fight Club" could be as well.

I don't know about the US but I don't think "Ghostbusters" is a cult film here in the UK.

 

How about the opposite? Can something start out as a cult classic and then get so popular that it no longer qualifies? If Austin Powers sequels were never made, the first one would seem like a cult classic given how mediocre its gross was. But the blockbuster sequels suggest its audience had grown to massive proportions. So is cult classic solely dependent on how much a movie made the first year it was out? Is Willy Wonka a cult classic, just because it flopped on its initial release? Or is it just a classic, or a really popular movie? I think Wizard of Oz also didn't so that great in its initial release, but no one would call it a cult classic now. Why is so much significance attached to how popular a movie was in its first year?

I think being a cult classic has very little to do with how much a movie made initially, and has everything to do with how popular it is NOW. And it can't be extremely popular. Hence, the word "cult." It means the movie currently has a small but loyal band of followers. For Sony's sake, they should hope the Ghostbusters fan base isn't small when the new Afterlife movie comes out.

 

I'm sorry, but Ghostbusters is just a classic. There's nothing "cult" about it. Maybe it's an "occult classic."

 

Star Wars is more a cultural phenomenon than a cult movie.

 

Ghostbusters was a mainstream movie success. Nothing cult about it.

Revisionism/marketing guff, often from people who are too young or too clueless to understand.

EG.

 

Don't you contradict yourself when you say "old enough" makes those movies qualify but then say "not if it's in the public consciousness"?

Which those 2 movies clearly still are?

 

If "Star Wars" is a "cult classic", then isn't every popular movie a "cult classic"?

"Star Wars" is arguably the most popular film ever made. How can that be a "cult classic"?

"Blade Runner" = cult classic because it essentially flopped in 1982 and needed time to find an audience. "Matrix" and "Star Wars" were big hits right away.

"Fight Club" made $37 million US and $100 million total worldwide. It had a budget of $63 million so it lost money on release.

"Ghostbusters" made $229 million just in the US in 1984. (Worldwide total is unclear.) It had a budget of $30 million so it turned an immense profit and was a cultural phenomenon in the US.

"Fight Club" wasn't a "blockbuster" by any definition, whereas "Ghostbusters" was a blockbuster by every definition.

"Fight Club" is a great example of a cult classic. "Ghostbusters" ain't - not in the US, at least, which is where the discussion originated...

 

This post hits the nail on the head. A film can grow out of "cult classic" status if it becomes too mainstream (A Christmas Story, for example), but it can't start mainstream and become a cult classic. That just ain't the way cults work.

 

No, I think "cult classic" has to do with initial reaction. The movie needs to be underappreciated initially and develop the cult later.

Doesn't have to flop but needs to underperform and later find an audience.

I do agree that some movies become too popular down the road to = "cult classic". I think the audience needs to remain "cultish", so that leaves out "Oz" and "Wonka".

The first "Austin Powers" is a weird one because even though it didn't do blockbuster #s at the box office, it found an audience very quickly.

It became a huge hit on video right off the bat - so much that there was a massive audience for the sequel barely 2 years later.

So even though "AP: IMOM" didn't sell tons of tickets, I think it became a video hit so quickly that it doesn't pass the "needed time to find an audience" part...

 

Good comment - goes along with thoughts about other movies that underperformed but became so mainstream down the road that they dropped any "cult" aspirations.

Apparently "Blade Runner" never did. I guess filmmakers thought it'd graduated to "mainstream classic", but given the less than warm reception to the sequel... maybe not!

 

I would maybe give some sway to a super old successful movie (like silent era) that is mostly forgotten and then gets a second life. But Ghostbusters has never really lost popularity and it certainly isn't that old.

 

it's a bit difficult to define the term cult classic.
however, I think the best recent example is the "big lebowski".
it went from being a here today, gone tomorrow box office dud to one of the hippest movies ever made.

 

See, I don't know about that. I think it has crossed over into the mainstream. Everyone knows every line of that film.

A cult classic is a film which, if you are in a room of 25 people, you can quote a line and only one person will get it but they will become your friend forever.

Recent examples of this (to me) are movies like Before Sunrise, Gremlins 2, π, The Lobster, The Cruise, etc.

 

No, because every movie doesn't have fan conventions, every movie doesn't inspire cosplay, every movie doesn't have people obsessively collecting memorabilia, quoting lines, making their homes into shrines, hunting out every showing, etc.
I wonder if there is a difference between a "cult classic" and a "cult film".

So you are saying a blockbuster is a film that makes a lot of money. I would say a blockbuster is a film that cost a lot of money (and, nowadays, has a huge marketing budget). I don't know if your cost figures are adjusted for inflation, but on face value they suggest to me that "Fight Club" is more of a blockbuster than "Ghostbusters". Success isn't necessary to be a blockbuster: "Cleopatra" and "Heaven's Gate" are blockbusters that failed.

I think we are agreed there!

 

I don't know if whoever coined the term "cult movie" went so far as to define it, but going by the words alone it should be safe to say that any movie that has a cult behind it is a cult movie. There are some pretty big cults out there, too (enough to nearly get one object of their adulation re-elected President). I would call a big part of the Star Wars following cultish in their devotion to the series. Although personally, having lived through the 80s when major studios were deliberately trying to produce and market what they imagined "cult" movies to look like, I prefer the narrower definition we mostly seem to agree on here: films "we" get but that "others" don't.

 

Sure, but if those events come with a movie that earned a ton of money, it's not a "cult", as such.

It's mainstream.

No - they were expensive bombs.

An expensive movie that flops isn't a blockbuster.

"block·bust·er
/ˈbläkˌbəstər/
noun

1. a thing of great power or size, in particular a movie, book, or other product that is a great commercial success"

I mean, would they have named the company "Blockbuster Video" because they wanted to imply they only carried movies that failed?

 

There are varying levels of "cult classic" - I think you narrow the definition too much.

"Lebowski" is a total CC. It's just like "Blade Runner": one of the more famous CCs.

Neither is truly "mainstream", though.