Not Tropeworthy (Crowner 3 Aug 2012): Cult Actor

Again, you're putting words into people's mouths. What we're arguing is that if we are going to tell people there's a difference, we must be able to say what that difference is.

This wiki may be dealing with almost exclusively abstraction, but it is still a written medium. If we cannot communicate an idea, it is pointless in this context.

Please note: I am not saying that discussion of cult actors is useless or invalid, just that at this point, we have no way to communicate it in a way which contributes to that conversation.

One more thing, the examples is actually the entire point. There have been a few tropes that have been redefined by the examples.

More like "Bruce Campbell is a cult actor" may as well be "Bruce Campbell is an actor".

@animeg: Yes, that means something, but why do we care about a list of black haired girls?

How many times do I have to say that I'm not talking about the examples?

@Cobra Prime

No, it may as well be "Bruce Campbell is an actor that doesn't have much mainstream popularity but is well-liked by his cult following of fans." It's pretty fucking simple.

@Doxiedame

"If we cannot communicate the idea"? I just did. And unless you're being purposely obtuse, I think it's incredibly easy to understand. Which is why people have been using the term for way longer than TV Tropes has even existed.

edited 7th Aug '12 7:49:39 PM by abk0100

And yet, lots of people adding examples to the trope don't follow even that description, however "incredibly easy to understand" it is. Apparently, it's not "pretty fucking simple".

It's a term used outside TV Tropes. No one is seriously arguing against that. However, as a defined term here on TV Tropes, empirical evidence suggests it's just not working as a trope.

edited 7th Aug '12 7:56:17 PM by AnotherDuck

Bruce Campbell could hardly qualify as a borderline example.

It's getting from the Will Smiths to the Bruce Campbells that is causing us trouble. It's easy to see difference between the careers and fanbases of these two, but there are many actors that fall in the middle of the spectrum.

We do not have a clear dividing line. That is the point I'm trying to make. Not that there aren't examples.

"Bruce Campbell is an actor that doesn't have much mainstream popularity"

What is this "Mainstream Popularity" you speak off ? Can I just declare something to have no mainstream popularity?

Just asking coz Bruce Campbell's name generates 29 million hits on google.

Ian Mc Kellen generates 5 million. So maybe Bruce is not that cult.

Heck, Jesse Eisenberg, star The Social Network for which he was oscar nominated... gets 6 million hits.

Sean Connery get 14 million.

So I can argue that Sean Connery is a cult a actor. He has less mainstream popularity and is really like by people who've seen his movies!

edited 7th Aug '12 8:07:09 PM by CobraPrime

Why does any of this matter if the page doesn't have examples?

Searching for "cult actor" in google gives me the tvtropes page as the second hit (though maybe that's just because google knows I use tvtropes). If we had a page for it, people looking for information could click on the link and learn about the concept of cult actors and the tropes related to it. At what point does Bruce Campbell possibly counting and possibly not counting become a problem?

edited 7th Aug '12 8:12:17 PM by abk0100

Bruce Campbell's status is pointless. My point is, "Lacking Mainstream Appeal" or whatever you wanna call it a concept utterly meaningless that I can make pretty much anyone fit it. So why keep a page on a concept that is utterly void of meaning? So loosely defined you can apply it to anyone.

Personally, I just think it's nothing more than a dictionary entry. It's just a term that has a definition that varies widely from person to person. With that loose of a definition it doesn't really do well as a page defining the term.

Heck, Googling "Cult Actor" gives results all pertaining to "Cult Films" except for TV Tropes.

Maybe Defining the article as "Actors who specialize in cult films" would give it SOME credibility. But that's for YKTTW. And even then, it's not like one can guess a movie will turn into a cult film, so it'd be a more of a list of coincidences. But at least it's measurable.

edited 7th Aug '12 8:21:02 PM by CobraPrime

Well, that appears to be an actual line of reasoning that doesn't boil down to "the examples section doesn't work" or some ridiculous claim like "the term is completely meaningless and conveys zero information whatsoever." It was like pulling teeth to get someone to come up with one, but, mission accomplished. Maybe next time I can get it to happen before the crowner is called.

Go ahead and lock this if there's no work left to be done with the cutting.

edited 7th Aug '12 8:27:15 PM by abk0100

It's really the only way we could define them. Judging by google, it's mostly lists instead of a real look at actors who manage to make a career out of cult shows/movies/etc.

Could be a trivia thing maybe? This actor has shown up in more than one cult film?

It still doesn't include people who gain cult followings who never actually starred in them though. Voice actors feature in mainstream stuff, would gain lots of hits on google, but wouldn't be considered household.

The whole cult/mainstream thing is kind of tough, really. What DOES count as mainstream these days?

Yeah, but then there's the question of fields. Movie actors tend to be "more well known" (Whatever that means) than tv actors, who tend to be more well known than voice actors.

I thought that was what I said in the first (well, second) post...

edited 7th Aug '12 8:43:46 PM by AnotherDuck

"Actor specializing in cult films" does sound like one of the ways "Cult Actor" is used. Unless the implication of the crowner is that creating a new Cult Actor trope is forbidden, I'd support that YKTTW.

At any rate, it does look like the decision has been made.

There may be a trope in Cult Film career actors, though.

Edit: Hey, agreement! That's something I'd go for, as well.

edited 7th Aug '12 8:48:03 PM by Doxiedame

Abk, your posts in this thread have been very aggressive and one is borderline thumpable. Please keep it civil when debating in the TRS.