The cult reading resonated with me as I am a huge fan of a lot of cult films such as “Back to the Future” and “Hot Rod”. These two films are similar in the sense that they use light humour that can be quoted in many random circumstances. However, the “Back to the Future” franchise has created a whole world as Eco states in his ‘Cult Movies and Intertextual Collage’ article where as ‘Hot Rod’ doesn’t seem to follow Eco’s formula for a cult movie. He claims that creating a ‘furnished world’ gives the audience a world of their own to quote and learn about, to participate in trivia games and participate in a set of beliefs.

Although I found Umberto Eco’s article very captivating and insightful, I have to disagree with a lot of it. Yes a lot of cult films are because they are able to be unhinged and dissected with many ideas and an ‘[incoherent] philosophy of composition’, I believe a cult film can be created without all this. Movies like ‘Hot Rod’ and ‘Stepbrothers’, even if they didn’t do so well at the Box-Office, they continue to be quoted and celebrated by millions around the world. It’s not because it provides a fully furnished complex world with a collection of ideas, it’s simply because it is a sense of humour that only certain people identify with, thus connecting people who enjoy these films.

The same way two people who discover they listen to the same band will start comparing their favourite songs, people who find out they both like something like ‘Hot Rod’ and other Andy Samberg films/tv shows will start quoting scenes.