how old is classic?

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by bwind22
Psycho- For it's time it was a defining movie in the suspense genre and film classes study it to this day. Hitchcock was using techniques on this film that are still employed constantly.

I hesitate to say this because I don't want to sound like I'm talking down to you, but what exactly are you basing the statement "this generation has no desire to see" on? Your own desire to see? How can you speak for an entire generation?

As for the rest of your list, I'm not sure I would consider all of those true classics. Psycho, Shining, and Halloween yes. The Fog and The Thing no. I suppose Phantom of the Opera is a classic but that's not my cup of tea at all. War of the Worlds is a tough call... The Orson Welles radio broadcast has certainly become a bit of a legend. The H.G Wells book is considered a classic. But the movie... I don't know... I'm torn on this one...

I'm not saying the films I mentioned (ecspecially Psycho) aren't classics I'm just saying that these days most people who watch it find it boring. I'm not trying to speak for the entire generation I'm sure there are people who would watch it and realize that it's a classic and a defining film. But your average movie-goer isn't going to want to see some of these films because they're old and some may find them boring for example if Psycho were a new film in color just being released this weekend with lets say Scream 4 or a new generic slasher do you honestly think it would make the same impact? of course not. The point being that a film doesn't have to stand the test of time it just has to be a great,defining film.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I'm not saying the films I mentioned (ecspecially Psycho) aren't classics I'm just saying that these days most people who watch it find it boring. I'm not trying to speak for the entire generation I'm sure there are people who would watch it and realize that it's a classic and a defining film. But your average movie-goer isn't going to want to see some of these films because they're old and some may find them boring for example if Psycho were a new film in color just being released this weekend with lets say Scream 4 or a new generic slasher do you honestly think it would make the same impact? of course not. The point being that a film doesn't have to stand the test of time it just has to be a great,defining film.

You are saying that Psycho has not stood the test of time and I believe that to be 100% false. It seems that you think the only reason it's considered calssic is because it was a defining movie in it's time. I'm saying that's not true. It's still a defining movie now.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here, but it shouldn't matter because we both end up at the same result. Psycho is a classic. We just have different ways of placing it there.

Just because our attention spans are shorter and we are much more used to blood, guts, and things blowing up, does not mean that movies that don't have those things are 'boring'. I don't think movies like Psycho or The Birds are boring at all. They are far more suspenseful than almost anything we see in theatres nowadays.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by bwind22
You are saying that Psycho has not stood the test of time and I believe that to be 100% false. It seems that you think the only reason it's considered calssic is because it was a defining movie in it's time. I'm saying that's not true. It's still a defining movie now.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here, but it shouldn't matter because we both end up at the same result. Psycho is a classic. We just have different ways of placing it there.

Just because our attention spans are shorter and we are much more used to blood, guts, and things blowing up, does not mean that movies that don't have those things are 'boring'. I don't think movies like Psycho or The Birds are boring at all. They are far more suspenseful than almost anything we see in theatres nowadays.

I know older movies aren't boring to people like us I was making referrences to the average guy/girl who watches movies these days. I personally don't like blood in horror movies besides when it's needed, I guess a better way of saying it would be that I don't like ridiculous amounts of it, today it seems that all horror movies(american anyway) are just blood and boobs.

As for the ''classic'' issue I think we're reading the same book just on different pages that's all.

[MichaelMyers]

20 years old or older.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
As for the ''classic'' issue I think we're reading the same book just on different pages that's all.

That's the notion I got too. :)

[I,ZOMBIE]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
A classic film isn't defined by how old it is, it's defined by the quality. There's movies from 1945 that suck and there's some made just last year that are classics.

yeah thats what i am saying.

[I,ZOMBIE]

Originally posted by ADOM
I consider the original to be a classic, but the remake was not an instant classic and I don't think people will be talking about how it shaped the genre 20 years from now.

You can see films that will become classics, but if they don't stand up to changes in society, technology, etc, they were just good movies for thier time. There were a lot of solid cars built in the 80's, but only a handful that people would seek out to drive. Go back and read the reports on the 1981 Ford Fairmont, it was called the "Best handling American car to date". You don't see many people restoring them though.

I do think with things changing as quickly as they do, ten to 15 years is plenty of time to consider a movie a classic if people still talk about it, refer to it, watch it, rent it, follow it, etc. The market is flooded with films now, so those hold on for any amount of time must have something.

also very true, this whole topic may be a good subject of debate.

(i think evil dead is a classic)

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by I,ZOMBIE


(i think evil dead is a classic)

well duh, lol j/k.

[slasherman]

A movie dont have to be old (20 years) to be called a classic....
To me "Ringu" is a classic...due to the impact and quality of the movie.....but "Gone with the wind" is no classic for me....so its a matter of taste...
-It dont have to be black and white
-It dont have to get an Oscar
-It dont have to be old
-It dont have to be innovative(but it helps)
-It dont have to be expencive

Many film criticts try to create a classic....but it is the audience who decide :p

[ShankS]

.