Talk:List of cult films

References to use

  • Carter, Oliver (2018). Making European Cult Cinema: Fan Enterprise in an Alternative Economy. Transmedia. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789089649935. Pending
  • Brode, Douglas (2021). Midnight Matinees: Cult Cinema Classics (1896 to the present day). BearManor Media. ISBN 978-1-62933-786-9. Pending
  • Broughton, Lee, ed. (2024). Reappraising Cult Horror Films: From Carnival of Souls to Last Night in Soho. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5013-8758-6. Pending
  • Harkin, David (2022). British Cult Cinema: Amicus to Zardoz. Troubadour Publishing. ISBN 978-1-80313-536-6. Pending
  • Macias, Patrick (2001). Tokyoscope: The Japanese Cult Film Companion. Viz Media. ISBN 978-1-56931-681-8. 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Martin, Daniel (2015). Extreme Asia: The Rise of Cult Cinema from the Far East. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-0360-3. Pending
  • Mathijs, Ernest; Sexton, Jamie, eds. (2021). The Routledge Companion to Cult Cinema. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-03-208420-6. Pending
  • Tolette, J. P., ed. (1991). "A Selective Cult Film Bibliography". The Cult Film Experience: Beyond All Reason. pp. 201–204. doi:10.7560/711358. Pending
  • Upton, Jennifer (2023). Japanese Cult Cinema: Films From the Second Golden Age Selected Essays & Reviews. Noctua Press. ISBN 978-1-399-95227-9. 16:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on book sources

In the past, these lists of cult films was a mess of various websites, mostly blogs, that use the term "cult" extremely loosely. These lists were overhauled to focus on books that intentionally curate lists of cult films so listings here can be above reproach. I see that with List of cult films: R, Josephite 25 wants to add Raaz (2002 film) based on a couple of websites that use "cult" (rather, "cult classic") extremely loosely. It's not even clear that these sources actually mean specifically cult films as opposed to just films with fan bases. This is why we should focus on books about cult films, since we know it's under that very specific encyclopedic classification, not the loose layperson usage that most websites use. This is the mess that the "R" page had before focusing on book sources, and we should not backslide to that. Pinging MSAOM and Harryhenry1 and notifying WT:FILM of this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps out of scope, but I see a lot of film articles that describe the film as being a "cult classic" and typically cite a single source which typically isn't a book. Are you suggesting that it might be a good idea to amend the MoS to say that film shouldn't be described as "cult classics" unless the supporting source is a book about cult films? DonIago (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that warrants a separate discussion since it does seem like most web pages that write "cult classic" or "cult following" use these terms very loosely. It would probably help to see if this looseness has been observed in the real world. I don't know if I would change the MOS in this regard, but in-text attribution of who said it, in the individual articles, would probably help show that opinion. Here, we don't do in-text attribution, as I think the book sources exert actual authority. As opposed to a random online article calling some film a cult film, making it now and forever part of Wikipedia's list of cult films. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my point is that it seems like a bit of a logical fallacy if a film is being described at its own article as being a cult film but would be inappropriate for inclusion here, so the initial conversation should perhaps be what the minimum standards of inclusion are in general for classifying a film as a cult film, whether it's for inclusion here or within the film's own article. DonIago (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense! Essentially, being consistent in labeling a film as a cult film across the board. I would support focusing on these book sources (and very related sources) for calling a film a cult film, in individual articles. I think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies here, where books are more "focused on the topic at hand" where online news articles loosely using the term contain "information provided in passing". I don't know if it rises to an MOS addition since it seems rather granular for that, but it could be a consensus resulting from a fairly involved discussion thread to point to. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) 19:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: it seems like a bit of a logical fallacy if a film is being described at its own article as being a cult film but would be inappropriate for inclusion here, that point or at least a similar one has been raised before. Alalch E. suggested an approach to resolving it at Talk:List of cult films/Archive 2#List criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Now that the book-based list taken form, it's time to move on to the next step, and resolve this "logical fallacy". I'd like to cite two consecutive comments from an earlier discussion:
@Erik, you agreed to deal with anything that no book covers after the version of the list based on books has been accepted as the base, which it has. You were interested in examples. I had given examples earlier on in the discussion. We can define it like two complementary paths toward list inclusion eligibility, "like GNG and SNGs" (quoting myself). There would be no need to add non-book sources to entries already included on the book basis. Entries could also be added based on a list-of-common-misconceptions-like-concept pass.
Raaz (2002 film) would not be an automatic pass. The judgement here could be that the film article should not include statements about the film's cult status, because the sources cited for that claim are not reliable sources; that would not require any changes to that article. The resolution of the "logical fallacy" would not be adding entries by automatism; it could also be a view here that the statement should not be present there in the first place -- that also resolves the inconsistency. In this example, it's debatable whether the cult film claim is good for the lead section. If the sources are not good enough and the discussion of film status is not prominent enough in the article for us to feel confident about adding the cult film status to the lead section, that it's an automatic fail however. So, lack of proof in the film article = automatic fail, and presence of proof in the film article = NOT automatic pass. Can you agree with that? —Alalch E. 20:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I follow. An individual film article and a list article are distinct scopes. In a perfect world, we should ideally cover the cult-film status in both, but I don't see grounds for requiring both at the same time in separate places. Covering it in only one place or the other not being allowed. Is that what you're arguing? (This feels tangential too; my original point was that Raaz is in the same category as the sources we were trying to get away from.) Erik (talk | contrib) 22:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2024 you said: I think that could be fine, but we should work through examples to see how they come out. Right now, I think it's more important to have a list based on books, and then deal with anything that no book covers. The thing for which you said could be fine is this this please try following from there on. —Alalch E. 23:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, after implementing the books, and with more books listed above that could be implemented, I find that we have a pretty extensive and well-rounded list. Working through the Raaz example, and noting its absence from the 2018 book of Indian cult films, I find through WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that the labeling in these websites are just saying it's a film that did well and continues to be liked today, which could be said of so many films. But I hate having to make that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS assessment of sources that will often use that in passing. Online lists could be next on the hierarchy, but I get the sense that a lot of editors don't like these so-called "listicles" and also wouldn't like the kind of sources used for Raaz and other films that were listed before. With this list topic targeted for deletion repeatedly, I feel like deriving this main list from multiple published lists makes it, as I said, above reproach. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all the discussion here, would it be okay to remove Raaz again? Harryhenry1 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead. I was going to remove it as part of adding the new "R" listings. Erik (talk | contrib) 23:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is clearly a problem with how the term is loosely used—especially by sources not dealing specifically with the subject of cult films—nobody really disputes that. The fact that the film does not appear on lists of cult movies alongside firmly established cult movies is a real red-herring for me. Neither is the film being proclaimed a "cult" movie by writers recognized as experts in film analysis. There is also a slight concern in that all of the sources are Indian; ordinarily this would not be an issue from a factual perspective, but there are language differences between different varieties of English (even American English and British English) and we need to be sure that when these terms are used they are applied consistently. On the subject of consistency, we should probably ignore what is written at the film article itself, logical fallacy or not. If an article does not cover a film's purported "cult" status then I think that weakens the case for adding the film to the list, but total consistency across all the articles would depend on all editors applying the same standards and that is difficult to achieve. We need to be pragmatic about it. This dispute brings to mind another article I regularly work on: the List of box-office bombs. Many films have been described as bombs that didn't actually bomb—they just slightly under-performed; we are lucky because we have been able to apply a financial criteria for inclusion. Unfortunately, a film's cult status cannot be objectively measured, but you can still bring a similar level of rigour to a film's subjective consideration by applying the principle at WP:BESTSOURCES, coupled with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Applying those principles, I am not convinced by the available sources that Raaz is a suitable inclusion on this list. Betty Logan (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I basically agree with Betty. Whenever I come across a reference referring to something as a cult film on the site, I generally stumble on a brief, one-line level of context saying "got trashed by critics, but developed a cult following" with or "ignored in its time, but became a cult item later". There's usually very little to gauge on the meaning of this due to the looseness in how its tossed around. When I was working on the article for Barbarella (film) for example, I included its reference of being a cult film as an author went into detail about how its fanbase existed beyond its initial reception (i.e: they note conventions surrounding the film, fanwebsites, etc.) I would suggest that as the term is loosley used, it shouldn't really be applied unless there is some follow-up on the scale and scope as it comes across as either an empty platitude that doesn't help a reader unfamiliar with the film or whatever piece of media get what term is implying. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I third this. The term "cult" has been tossed around fast and loose nowadays. It's more or less being used as a marketing term nowadays. There are people who would consider anything released by say, Vinegar Syndrome, to be a cult film, for example. While a lot of their movies are cult films, not all of them are.
    I think that book sources, depending on what they are, could count. Web based sources might but it would depend on context, as others have said. If it's an article written by Michael Gingold, Stephen King, Kim Newman, or Rodrigo Gudiño then yeah. Those would be considered cult films since they're all known for their commentary on horror. But if it's random journalist at Dread Central, then it would heavily depend on how the article was written. The site is very much a reliable source but we would need to make sure that it wasn't based on a single opinion or a press release. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

Prompted by this, while this list uses almost entirely book sources, I did maintain one online list from The Criterion Collection as seen here since I had figured it would be the most authoritative such list available online. However, we can discuss removing it to be consistent about referencing books. From what I can tell, it usually overlaps with other sources, but there are some outliers. (You can search for yourself the [#] in one of the lists, like [8] under "T" to see all but True Stories having other references.) I suppose one could also argue that the list is not independent enough, e.g., Criterion wanting to market a particular film as cult, to sell their products. Thoughts from others? Erik (talk | contrib) 15:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry concern

I would like to raise a concern regarding possible sockpuppetry involving the accounts User:MSAOM and User:Harryhenry1. The editing patterns of these accounts appear similar in the following ways:

  • Both accounts have edited the same article(s) in a coordinated manner.
  • Their edits show similar timing and editing focus.
  • They have supported each other’s edits.

Star Rider X ❯❯❯ 💌 07:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not the place to be accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. Second, I can confirm that I am in no way a sockpuppet of MSAOM, and my edits do not in any way overlap with MSAOM's outside of edits made on List of cult films: R. I know you want Raaz listed on the page, but it just don't match our criteria for a cult film. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_cult_films