The crowner has been open for four days, including a full 24 hour period on a weekday, and it shows an overwhelming majority believe the page is not salvageable. Calling in favor of a cut. Cutlist the page, then Holler for a lock.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.Not anymore.
Your turn, Cutmaster-san.
Coz it's defining something pointless? Except for those rare actors who have never acted in anything, including theater, before getting a major break and becoming superstar, EVERY ACTOR was "cult" at some point if you define cult as "Someone likes them". The concept of "Cult Actor" seems pointless since it lacks any kind of measure to define it.
That's not what's being said. There have been many clear reasons people have given already earlier in this thread.
But to sum it up, an actor with a cult following is a very nebulous thing to determine. And judging by the list of actors that was put on the page, everyone has a different definition.
The possibility of cleaning up misuse would be extremely difficult given we're not sure exactly which examples constitute misuse.
In other words, there is no actual difference between this and just a list of actors.
edited 7th Aug '12 5:31:42 PM by Doxiedame
Rule of fanworks reviews: The amount of constructive criticism a work receives is in inverse proportion to the amount it needs.I'm not talking about the examples. Removing the examples was also an option in the crowner. It was voted down by 10 people, and no one has explained why. All the arguments against this page are just talking about the examples.
When someone searchs for "cult actor" on TV Tropes, and all they can find about the term is this TRS thread, it would be nice if they could at least see the reasoning behind the decision to not have the page.
edited 7th Aug '12 5:51:15 PM by abk0100
Not everyone who votes in these take part in the conversation, so I can hardly speak for the reason they voted the way they did. However, those that DID take part have given their reason for the most part.
If this is about getting people to put a reason when they vote, that's a conversation for the Tech Wishlist forum.
Rule of fanworks reviews: The amount of constructive criticism a work receives is in inverse proportion to the amount it needs.No, we gave other argument. Like ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
How would you define cult actor so the definition doesn't apply to everyone? "Actor who isn't liked by everyone but liked by some?" The term is completely meaningless. It can be applied to ANY actor, but there's literally no measure for it. By definition, everyone who isn't a Triple A super star is a "Cult Actor". And even then, one can probably justify AAA actors being "Cult" somehow.
Unlike a Cult Film, which has actual parameters: Usually underperformed when it was released or had a very limited release, but enjoys a popularity years after their release that is sometimes greater than very profitable movies of the same time.
edited 7th Aug '12 6:05:55 PM by CobraPrime
I'd say any use of the word cult means it's not strictly defined, so it's not very useful for a clear trope. However, some tropes do work without being defined to the last digit. This one just doesn't work. The objective parameters that are there are very weak, and not enough as a definition. Cult film has more objective parameters (sales and commercial value), so it can actually work.
edited 7th Aug '12 6:21:19 PM by AnotherDuck
Check out my fanfiction!![]()
So, everyone who uses the term "cult actor" is actually saying absolutely nothing? They're just using a completely meaningless phrase as filler? When I say "Bruce Campbell is a cult actor," I may as well be saying "Bruce Campbell is a dooblety targh," because both sentences convey exactly the same amount of information?
The page had a perfectly reasonable definition: an actor who isn't that popular, but has a cult following. It's used when people want to say "this actor isn't that popular, but has a cult following," but don't want to use so many words.
Since when did "this page doesn't have a strict 100% air-tight foolproof definition" become a reason for cutting a page?
edited 7th Aug '12 6:25:19 PM by abk0100
There are words with meaning but which are too vague to really build a trope around. It's like Black Haired Girl. Yes, that means something, but why do we care about a list of black haired girls?
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?

It's pretty near unanimous