 Writing in Defining Cult Movies , Jancovich et al. quote academic Jeffrey Sconce , who defines cult films in terms of paracinema , marginal films that exist outside critical and cultural acceptance : everything from exploitation to beach party musicals to softcore pornography . However , they reject cult films as having a single unifying feature ; instead , they state that cult films are united in their " subcultural ideology " and opposition to mainstream tastes , itself a vague and undefinable term . Cult followings themselves can range from adoration to contempt , and they have little in common except for their celebration of nonconformity – even the bad films ridiculed by fans are artistically nonconformist , albeit unintentionally . At the same time , they state that bourgeois , masculine tastes are frequently reinforced , which makes cult films more of an internal conflict within the bourgeoisie , rather than a rebellion against it . This results in an anti @-@ academic bias despite the use of formal methodologies , such as defamiliarization . This contradiction exists in many subcultures , especially those dependent on defining themselves in terms of opposition to the mainstream . This nonconformity is eventually co @-@ opted by the dominant forces , such as Hollywood , and marketed to the mainstream . Academic Xavier Mendik also defines cult films as opposing the mainstream and further proposes that films can become cult by virtue of their genre or content , especially if it is transgressive . Due to their rejection of mainstream appeal , Mendik says cult films can be more creative and political ; times of relative political instability produce more interesting films . 
