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

It’s an interesting discussion. I guess it depends on your definition of blockbuster. I agree that a “massive” hit like Ghostbusters is disqualified from the cult movie ranks. But I think something like “The Warriors” that was number one for February 1979 but pretty much disappeared afterwards, only to be rediscovered and revered subsequently might qualify.

There are probably quite a few more niche movies, primarily intended for a limited audience, especially horror movies, that had a big week or two and followed a similar path of oblivion and rediscovery. Whether they can be called blockbusters is up for debate.

 

Yeah, that was a case where those involved with the sequel clearly thought the cult was much bigger than it was.

 

I think it is possible, and can think of the scenario but not quite the film that fits it. Basically, if a sequel is riding on the coattails of the hugely successful original and makes a tidy sum NOT based on its own merits, gets panned critically and audience-wise, but then further down the line the sequel develops a cult to the point that some consider it better than the original. Some possible examples:

Alien3 - made $100 million more than its budget, was critically derided and audiences gave it a C rating, and now some consider it the best one due to its dark tone.
Exorcist II (yes, some consider it better)
Robocop 2

Or how about Scarface. Doubled its budget but was generally spat on at the time as being lowbrow and vulgar (except Ebert's 4 star review), and it certainly found a cult audience. Entertainment Weekly ranked the film #8 on their list of "The Top 50 Cult Films,

 

Agree. It's like the first "Austin Powers". It initially gained a modest audience, and if it'd stayed relatively small like that, it'd be a cult classic.

But it blew up quickly on video, which is why the sequel was a massive hit.

If the 1st movie maintains maybe 1/4th the gain in audience it actually got on video, it's a cult classic.

But it became huge on video and led to 2 blockbuster sequels and an enduring place in pop culture, so it ain't a cult classic!

 

I'd agree "Warriors" is a cult classic. It did decently in 1979 but still only wound up in 28th place at the US box office, so it wasn't really a hit.

For context, Acknowledged Cult Classic "Blade Runner" was 27th for 1982 - though admittedly, "Blade Runner" came with much higher box office expectations than did "Warriors".

A movie doesn't need to flop to be a cult classic. But it also can't be a major hit - like, I don't know... "Ghostbusters"!

 

Do some people think those movies are the best of their respective franchises? I guess.

Do these people account for a substantial %age of fans of those respective franchises? No.

I always liked "Alien3" and I've been a big fan of the franchise, but I've never sensed any groundswell of support for it. It's still clearly regarded as the 3rd best of the franchise.

"Robo2" and "Exorcist II" may have their own small cults, but they're more often mocked for their poor quality than embraced. I don't think either found enough of a fan base to = "cult classic".

Oh, that one is definitely a cult classic! Not a flop in 1983 but viewed poorly and not a hit, either.

 

Alien3 became the cool one to prefer in many emo circles, or just Fincher fans which there is a lot. That groundswell is there, and it made $160 million on a $60 million budget. I think that one is the best example.

For your other points, I personally prefer Robocop 2.

I guess the question is can something under perform expectations/hype and still be a blockbuster? Does a blockbuster have to exceed or equal the hype, or can it simply make a certain amount over its budget?

 

"Alien3" has a commercial reputation that suffered because it came out in the era when people pretty much only paid attention to US box office.

Now we take into account worldwide when we deem a movie a hit or a bomb, but 30 years ago, box office "ratings" essentially ignored anything outside of North America.

In the US, "Alien3" was a disappointment. $55 million, 28th place for the year.

But that $100 million or so internationally allowed it to turn a profit.

Still not a real hit, but not the flop it seemed to be in the US.

I'll take your word for it that "Alien3" has gained in the view of the "emos"!

It felt like "Alien3" got a little bump when the extended version came out on DVD, as that allowed for some reappraisal.

Nonetheless, the 1st 2 remain by far the most beloved by non-emos!

No comment!

IMO, a blockbuster is fairly absolute.

A hit is a hit, even if it doesn't make money - or much money.

Look at "Rise of Skywalker". It disappointed a lot of people and underperformed many expectations... but it still made more than $1 billion worldwide.

If a movie makes more than $1 billion, it has to be viewed as a blockbuster, even if it wasn't as huge a hit as many expected...

 

Cult classic is such a specific and broad term.
Status definitely plays into it. For instance, Blade Runner or Chinatown. Both not commercially successful upon release. Now are quintessential examples of Sci-Fi or (neo) Noir. Their appreciation has grown massively beyond cult status, yet still do not bring in big bucks at the box office. I think these would be now considered classics. Or genre defining films.

A cult classic is a more fringe film. Off the beaten path types with diehard followings. Still in the realm of no one has heard of it.

 

So then how much over a budget (or times a budget) must the film make in order to be a hit? Does it have to be a hit in the country it was filmed/intended for, or can it haul it in internationally, and then be reappraised in its "home" country? I'm almost positive there are films where this happened, a US movie was considered too out there but European audiences flocked to it and eventually it found its US cult. In fact:

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 - made 10 times its own budget (how is that NOT a hit?), was viewed as disappointing audience/critic-wise in the US, but was viewed in Europe as it eventually found a cult in the US - as a gay horror movie, complete with subtext whether intentional or not. This may displace Alien3 in my eyes. From wikipedia:

Freddy's Revenge was released on November 1, 1985, and grossed $30 million at the domestic box office on a budget of $3 million. It received mixed reviews from critics upon release, with many comparing it unfavorably to its predecessor. However, it has enjoyed later success as a cult classic, with critics having reassessed the film's homoerotic themes and subject material.​

PS: Robocop 2 has some of the best stop-motion ever and has this awesomely hilarious moment at 1:20

 

To me, a cult film is a film like Repo Man or Buckaroo Banzai or Videodrome. No box office action and people still loving these films 40 years on...

 

To my way of thinking, no.

In other words the question would be an oxymoron. Cult classic, as I have always seen the term used, is polar opposite of a blockbuster.

 

I agree with this about Lebowski - I remember when it was “our” movie and a small group of us knew about it and loved it. It’s so well-known now, after 25 years, that it’s lost it’s cult status I think, which is ironic.

 

"Hit" is definitely a moving target, and a lot of it does boil down to subjective impressions.

"Alien3" was touted as a blockbuster and it didn't do that kind of business.

Yeah, it probably made a little money, but $150 million-ish worldwide wasn't great. It was way more expensive than the 1st 2 and thus came with higher expectations. Not sure I'd say non-US audiences "flocked" to the flick - it did better outside the US, but it wasn't huge.

I think the same happened with "Nightmare 2". If BoxOfficeMojo is correct, "N2" actually made more money theatrically than the 1st movie, but I think the 1984 "Nightmare" found a good audience on video so New Line expected bigger numbers from "N2".

Or I'm full of crap - I dunno!

Really, a variety of factors determine what is/isn't a "hit", and the definitions can change from person to person.

With "Alien3" and "Nightmare 2", I think negative fan reaction at the time played a big role. Whatever reappraisal both have gotten over the decades, they weren't viewed generally favorably at the time!

 

I dunno - I think "Lebowski" is still pretty "cult".

It's a decent-sized cult and a bigger cult than it was 20 years, but it's not a movie I think has crossed over to the mainstream...

 

I don't think SCARFACE, BLADE RUNNER or SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION qualify as cult films. They got a second life on video and cable and became part of the cultural fabric, but they were never cult films.

There needs to be a separate, non-cult status for films that become hits after their theater run . . .

 

Merriam-Webster has a couple of different definitions for "cult" beyond the religious definition:

1. A situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

2. A small group of very devoted supporters or fans

Depending on which definition you apply towards a "cult classic" you could make arguments in either direction. Certainly, a film like Star Wars has an extremely devoted fanbase that goes beyond simple admiration of the film(s)... probably caring about the movies "very much or too much." That would meet the first definition. But does the fanbase need to be small, as per the second definition, for a film to be a cult classic?

I'm guessing most people assign the second definition for films they call a cult classic. But there are aspects of Star Wars fandom that definitely have a cult-like feel to them. But the overall wide popularity and appreciation for blockbuster films makes me lean away from calling them cult classics. They would most likely just be called classics. (Though not every popular film is a classic in my book.)

 

Was Mommie Dearest a "blockbuster" when first released? It might qualify...

 

On that note, how about Mom and Dad (1945.) Never heard of it? Well it is one of the highest grossing movies of the 1940's. Nowadays it fits in with other message film cult classics like Reefer Madness.



Or how about popular trashy films like Beyond the Valley of the Dolls or Rocky Horror Picture Show? Sure the latter bombed at first, but it grew legs to the point you have to call it a blockbuster.

 

The Alien3 thing is generational. In the mid '90s, Alien3 (in an edited cut) was on TV all the time. There were apparently some rights issues that prevented Aliens from being shown on network TV at that time and Alien was considered not appropriate or possibly just too old (my recollection is that a TV edit was never even prepared for it). My friends and I definitely saw Alien3 years before we saw the first two and consequently we tended to think of it as "the" Alien movie. Many of us then went to see Alien Resurrection and were duly baffled by it.

RoboCop 2 has definitely attracted a cult over the last 10 years or so. It seems like a lot of people my age remember it fondly. I don't particularly like it, myself, but there's no doubt it has the finest effects and design of any RoboCop sequel or spinoff. (The first RoboCop has always been one of my favorite movies.)

 

No - the movie was a much-derided flop.

38th place at the 1981 box office. Lost money.

 

No, I don't think a movie that makes money veeeeery slowly over decades counts as a "blockbuster".

 

It bombed when first released but became a cult item and got showings within a couple years. Again, you seem to have a narrow view of a blockbuster. It has to make the money in its own country, it can't make it over several years, it also apparently can't just make a bunch times its budget it also has to exceed the expectations, it apparently is tied to what # at the box office it was for the year without consideration for how much it cost. But with all of these parameters, I still think the answer to this thread remains:

Mom and Dad (1945) - would only be denied a blockbuster status if we only looked at mainstream cinemas, because it made its money mostly in road shows, but overall one of the highest grossing movies of the decade. Not a good film, a cheap film where many people watched just to see a real live birth on film. It has cult classic written all over it.

 

I don't think I'm throwing out some oddball definition of a "blockbuster". I'm using a pretty common view of it.

I honestly never heard of this movie. If you say it still has a cult audience, though, I'll believe you!

 

Definition - A film that has a passionate fan base despite lacking critical acclaim, box office success, and/or mainstream interest.

by that definition Ghostbusters can't be a cult classic.