From Flop to Classic: Re-evaluating Recent Films

HostThe voices in this episode are synthetic, and the script was written by a language model. The positions are real, and they come from the thread.

HostToday on the show, we're diving into a lively discussion from Reddit, specifically the movies subreddit, where hundreds of comments debated a fascinating question: which recent films, initially panned or commercially unsuccessful, will eventually be re-evaluated as classics or cult hits? It's a topic that really got people talking, with strong opinions on what truly deserves a second look.

HostThe thread was largely optimistic, with many users championing films they felt were misunderstood. But there was also a vocal group of skeptics, and some who felt certain films were already well-regarded. Let's start with someone who's really hopeful about these future classics.

Future classic proponentI'm convinced many movies that flopped or got bad reviews are just ahead of their time. They're criminally underrated, often made by people who truly appreciate the source material, offering a flawless and fun experience that just wasn't recognized initially.

Still bad skepticBut aren't some movies just genuinely bad? I mean, a lot of what's suggested has legitimately bad dialogue or repetitive joke structures that make them unenjoyable, even if you're a fan of the hobby it's based on.

Future classic proponentTake Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves, for example. It's a comedic masterpiece, absolutely flawless, and it's got a 91 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a box office flop, sure, but it's clearly a future classic.

Already good defenderHold on, if it's got a 91 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and a 92 percent audience score, it wasn't 'critically panned.' It was a very well-received movie; it just wasn't a hit at the box office. That doesn't quite fit the premise of re-evaluation.

Still bad skepticAnd honestly, the dialogue in that movie is legit bad. The scene transitions and jokes are so repetitive. I don't think it's going to age well at all, regardless of its initial critical reception.

HostSo, for a film to truly be re-evaluated, does it need to have been both a critical and commercial failure? Or is commercial disappointment enough if critics were already on board?

Future classic proponentI think initial box office disappointment, especially for an acclaimed director with creative freedom, often sets the stage for a cult classic. Critics didn't know what to do with Babylon at the time, but it's amazing, three hours of pure chaos, and it's got all the makings of a cult hit.

Already good defenderI loved Babylon too, and I was really surprised when I found out it got a mixed reception. But I think its quality is already recognized by many. The reappraisal is already beginning, if it ever truly needed one.

Still bad skepticI can't fathom how someone doesn't think some of these movies are bad. Megalopolis, for instance, is so goddamn boring and the acting is so wooden. It only has the potential to be a cult movie because of how bad it is and how much it flopped, not because it'll get critical re-appraisal.

Future classic proponentBut sometimes films are just misunderstood. Spring Breakers is one of the best satires of privileged experience ever created, but audiences often miss the point, mistaking critique for glorification. That's a film that'll be valued by future generations.

Still bad skepticI completely disagree. Spring Breakers is legitimately one of the worst movies I've ever watched. Zero character or story, just a montage of bullshit to make the shallowest satire possible. It's not going to be re-evaluated as anything but a bad movie.

Already good defenderI think Spring Breakers was a cult classic then and still is today. It's already appreciated by those who understand it, so it doesn't need a future re-evaluation in the same way.

HostSo, the line between a misunderstood satire and a shallow one seems to be a major point of contention. What about films that are just plain uncomfortable or timely, depicting moral panic?

Future classic proponentEddington is easily the best movie of the year, but it's too uncomfortable and fresh off COVID for people to want it right now. It depicts American moral panic, and those kinds of films are difficult for contemporary audiences but will be valued by future generations.

Still bad skepticI liked Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die a lot, but I think it's so heavy-handed with the 'technology bad' scolding that it'll feel very dated in a few years. A film can be too preachy and that makes it age poorly.

Future classic proponentSometimes it's just marketing failures or audience burnout. The Matrix Resurrections has the richest themes in the series, and it's not a bad movie, despite widespread negative reception. People were just tired of the franchise or the actors.

Still bad skepticThe Matrix Resurrections is straight dogshit, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's far worse than the previous sequels. There's no amount of re-evaluation that's going to make that a good film.

HostIt sounds like for some films, the initial negative reaction is seen as a sign of deeper flaws, while for others, it's a temporary hurdle. What about the role of streaming platforms in all this?

Future classic proponentStreaming platforms are huge for giving movies a second life. They allow films to be rediscovered by audiences who might've missed them in theaters or were influenced by negative online opinions. It's a chance for a fresh look.

HostAnd what about the idea that some directors' works, initially dismissed as 'style over substance,' will see critical reappraisal?

Future classic proponentThe Neon Demon was incredibly thought-provoking and had a lot of interesting things to say, but it was panned as being 'style over substance.' I think audiences will engage more deeply with its themes over time and recognize its artistic merit.

Still bad skepticBut some films truly lack artistic contribution. TENET has no story, just a plot. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to say artistically with anything that happens in the entire movie. And the godawful sound design aggressively pissed people off, which won't change with time.

HostPoor sound design is a specific technical flaw that could definitely hinder a film's long-term appeal. What about films that are just messy or 'batshit insane'?

Future classic proponentThe messiness and gonzo nature of a film like The Bride, despite being 'batshit insane' and panned, could be appreciated later. It's got a lot of campy elements that could make it a cult classic in a decade or two. Sometimes bizarre and fun vibes are enough.

HostThe discussion often saw users fiercely defending their chosen films, sometimes leading to pretty heated exchanges, especially around movies like Dungeons & Dragons and the Star Wars sequels. There was also a meta-discussion about the definition of 'cult classic,' with some arguing it requires initial critical failure, not just commercial underperformance.

HostNow, not everyone agreed on the specifics. A few people thought Babylon already has a dedicated cult following, while others dismissed that as just people saying it's underrated without actual cultural impact. And the idea that Joker: Folie a Deux would be re-evaluated was met with strong disagreement, with many calling it mean-spirited and poorly written.

HostUltimately, the thread didn't land on a consensus for which specific films will be re-evaluated, but there was a general agreement that some films do find a second life and appreciation over time. The big question that remains unresolved is where to draw the line between a genuinely bad film and one that was simply ahead of its time or misunderstood.

HostSloppod out.

HostSloppod is sponsored by Taskpile.app.

Det samme, som ren tekst