Adrian wrote: Chris, the big budget movies today are produced to try and make them blockbusters.  Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not.  No one could argue that despite its budget Titanic was a blockbuster.  On the other hand, Waterworld wasn't.

As I said, it's a b*****disation of the original meaning of the term. Now it basically just means any film that made a s**t load of cash.

I actually liked "Waterworld."

Chris. You're right. Of course. The term blockbuster is used as a generalization but for the purposes of this thread and as far as what George Lucas meant, its used to descibe the 'planned blockbuster' not the one's that come out of nowhere. The one's that come out of nowhere are usually the one's that stand the test of time better than the planned one's. I think he's saying that, as production costs come down, studio's will eventually concede that they are very wasteful and change the way they produce films. One of these ways would be by not commiting huge sums ($200mill plus) to make a planned blockbuster. That's how I read it anyway. I may be wrong. I frequently am.

The same goes for the term cult, it used to mean a film that did really c**p at the box office, but through the years the film has gathered popularity through either video or television, for example Blade Runner.

Now it means that it's an independant film, that gets shown at a movie festival like Sundance, and hope that word of mouth, or bribe someone like Harry from AICN to plug the movie, in hopes that it generates a lot of interest when they shove it on DVD.

Then some marketing person or some two bit reviewer quickly labels it a cult movie, just because it's sold just over a thousand copies due to a bunch of internet geeks who read AICN or Kevin Smith's website.