how old is classic?

[I,ZOMBIE]

so i have seen some discussion about what makes a movie a classic, so i would like some feedback!

[zwoti]

going by the heading.......1969 and before

[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.

[bwind22]

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.

I don't agree. I think to be considered a classic it needs to stand the test of time. A movie can be all the rage when it's released because of good publicity or hype or whatever, but if the next generation of movie fan has no desire to see it, then it's not a classic.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by bwind22
I don't agree. I think to be considered a classic it needs to stand the test of time. A movie can be all the rage when it's released because of good publicity or hype or whatever, but if the next generation of movie fan has no desire to see it, then it's not a classic.



do you consider Psycho to be a classic?

[ADOM]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
do you consider Psycho to be a classic?

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.

[AUSTIN316426808]

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.


Ok you guys are saying a classic is a film that can stand the test of time yet you call Psycho a classic, It's not effective anymore it can't even scare my neice show it to anybody these days who hasn't seen it and they'll probably either think it's boring or laugh at it.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by bwind22
I don't agree. I think to be considered a classic it needs to stand the test of time. A movie can be all the rage when it's released because of good publicity or hype or whatever, but if the next generation of movie fan has no desire to see it, then it's not a classic.



so a movie isn't a classic if the next generation doesn't want to see it? In that case...

Psycho
The Fog
The Thing
The Shining
Halloween
War of the Worlds
Phantom of the Opera....the list goes on and on of films that this generation has no desire to see does that mean they aren't classics?

[urgeok]

i think for the sake of organization, classics are determined chronologically here on the forum but we can all agree that a true horror classic is a film that defines the genre... almost always a film that spawns many immitations, often the first of its kind - or at least the fist to make any noise.

It will be a benchmark film that subsequent films are judged by.

Halloween, Psycho, Texas Chainsaw, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead.

Essential landmark films that are a must for any horror film collector.

not to be confused with Cult Classics .. which may not be landmark films but own a place in the upper ranks of the genre due to some unique characteristic - often just raw entheusiasm (Evil Dead, Hills Have Eyes)
Crowd pleasers for those sick of the same old hat ...

[bwind22]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
so a movie isn't a classic if the next generation doesn't want to see it? In that case...

Psycho
The Fog
The Thing
The Shining
Halloween
War of the Worlds
Phantom of the Opera....the list goes on and on of films that this generation has no desire to see does that mean they aren't classics?

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...

[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]

.

[slasherman]

and...?

[zwoti]

Originally posted by slasherman
and...?

you can work it out

[crazy raplh]

Originally posted by bwind22
I don't agree. I think to be considered a classic it needs to stand the test of time. A movie can be all the rage when it's released because of good publicity or hype or whatever, but if the next generation of movie fan has no desire to see it, then it's not a classic.

exactly.. look at The Faculty. But I would say a good geration or so, My vote is for 70's and back.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by crazy raplh
exactly.. look at The Faculty. But I would say a good geration or so, My vote is for 70's and back.
"Ringu" have stand the test of time....:)

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by crazy raplh
exactly.. look at The Faculty. But I would say a good geration or so, My vote is for 70's and back.



what about the Faculty? I don't think anybody has considered that a classic no matter how popular it might've been at the time.

[The STE]

in general, who can say for sure? As far as the board is concerned? Before 1970, so I voted 1970 and earlier

[urgeok]

Originally posted by 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


it is a portion of the audience who decide ..
the hard core movie fans .. not the casual movie fans wo just want something to do - bigger television.

the average movie goer wouldnt know a decent film if it jumped up and bit off their dick.

I know film like any art is personally subjective ... but the majority of people dont have much of an opinion .. let alone an informed one.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by urgeok
the average movie goer wouldnt know a decent film if it jumped up and bit off their dick.


sad but true....:(
....the use of the term classic on this forum isnt correct but it makes thing easier...just like genres....I guess it have to be like that....
...Or the forum could just call it old horror movies...(the term classic (in mine view) dosent say anything about the age of the movie....It says more about how the movie IS than how old....

[ClassicHorror]

There's a difference between a classic film, and a modern classic.

Classic is from 1969 down as that was when black and white films started to fade away....

Modern Classics are 70's up.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by ClassicHorror
There's a difference between a classic film, and a modern classic.

Classic is from 1969 down as that was when black and white films started to fade away....

Modern Classics are 70's up.
but we were talking about the term classic...if you add something like modern, old, new, bad : classic ....of course it means something else :eek:

[ClassicHorror]

Yes but this is the classic horror forum, so 1969 down is what its meant by here.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by slasherman
"Ringu" have stand the test of time....:)

It was made in 1998. :rolleyes:


Because you are trying to say Ringu is a classic and Gone with the Wind is not, it leads me to believe that your definition of classic is 'any movie you really like.'

Unfortunately the world does not revolve around you, and neither does the term 'classic'. Classic is a general umbrella in every genre of movie to define films that have made a profound impact on the genre and endured the test of time.

Gone with the Wind is most definately a classic, whether you like the movie or not. Ringu is not a classic yet (No matter how much you like it.), but it could become one someday.

The use of the term classic on this forum is not wrong, it's your use of the term classic that is inaccurate.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by bwind22
It was made in 1998. :rolleyes:


Because you are trying to say Ringu is a classic and Gone with the Wind is not, it leads me to believe that your definition of classic is 'any movie you really like.'

Unfortunately the world does not revolve around you, and neither does the term 'classic'. Classic is a general umbrella in every genre of movie to define films that have made a profound impact on the genre and endured the test of time.

Gone with the Wind is most definately a classic, whether you like the movie or not. Ringu is not a classic yet (No matter how much you like it.), but it could become one someday.

The use of the term classic on this forum is not wrong, it's your use of the term classic that is inaccurate.

i didnt go back far enough to know what the Gone with the Wind reference was referring to (of course its a classic)

but i agree that Ringu - if not now - eventually will be determined as a classic eventually as the movie that introduced the increasingly Japanese horror movement in north america, not only spawning american versions but opening the doors to north america for the origionals as well...
I htink this is the beginning of a new wave of horror films ...
It succeded where the italians did not (for the masses, not us informed folk).
I can see this potentially spurring north america into looking at other countries for inspiration as well. (god knows they have no ideas of their own)

thats my prediction anyway ..

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok
i didnt go back far enough to know what the Gone with the Wind reference was referring to (of course its a classic)

but i agree that Ringu - if not now - eventually will be determined as a classic eventually as the movie that introduced the increasingly Japanese horror movement in north america, not only spawning american versions but opening the doors to north america for the origionals as well...
I htink this is the beginning of a new wave of horror films ...
It succeded where the italians did not (for the masses, not us informed folk).
I can see this potentially spurring north america into looking at other countries for inspiration as well. (god knows they have no ideas of their own)

thats my prediction anyway ..

That is great arguement for why Ringu will someday be thought of as a classic!

[crazy raplh]

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
what about the Faculty? I don't think anybody has considered that a classic no matter how popular it might've been at the time.


that is my point.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by bwind22
It was made in 1998. :rolleyes:


Because you are trying to say Ringu is a classic and Gone with the Wind is not, it leads me to believe that your definition of classic is 'any movie you really like.'

Unfortunately the world does not revolve around you, and neither does the term 'classic'. Classic is a general umbrella in every genre of movie to define films that have made a profound impact on the genre and endured the test of time.

Gone with the Wind is most definately a classic, whether you like the movie or not. Ringu is not a classic yet (No matter how much you like it.), but it could become one someday.

The use of the term classic on this forum is not wrong, it's your use of the term classic that is inaccurate.
First: "Ringu" isnt 'any movie I really like
Second: why is "Gone with the wind" a classic....?...because it was a big hit....and because it was expensive and had big stars...? To me thats not enough....It probably got many oscars too...
To me its a sleazy overdone lovestory...its a typical hollywood turkey...It remindes me of "Titanic" which is allready considered a classic...... by some film critics.....

[urgeok]

Originally posted by slasherman
First: "Ringu" isnt 'any movie I really like
Second: why is "Gone with the wind" a classic....?...because it was a big hit....and because it was expensive and had big stars...? To me thats not enough....It probably got many oscars too...
To me its a sleazy overdone lovestory...its a typical hollywood turkey...It remindes me of "Titanic" which is allready considered a classic...... by some film critics.....


titanic will never have the staying power of Gone with the Wind.

That movie is still being quoted daily .. (not just the misquoted 'frankly scarlett' line .. but a ton of others)

it was a landmark film, and although some of it seems corny and dated, there is still a lot of sofistication in other parts.

Please dont compare it to that fly-by-night titanic movie ..


(by the way - i'm not even crazy about Gone With The Wind - but i respect its very important place in the history of cinema)

[bwind22]

Originally posted by slasherman
First: "Ringu" isnt 'any movie I really like

? ? ? Okay, what is it then?

Second: why is "Gone with the wind" a classic....?...because it was a big hit....and because it was expensive and had big stars...? To me thats not enough....It probably got many oscars too...
To me its a sleazy overdone lovestory...its a typical hollywood turkey...It remindes me of "Titanic" which is allready considered a classic...... by some film critics.....

Are you seriously trying to sit here and argue that Ringu is more of a classic than Gone with the Wind? Once again, you are basing your definition of 'classic' off your own personal taste in movies. You said 'me' 3 times in that paragraph and we are talking about an objective phrase... It doesn't matter what the movie is to you, it matters how it is perceived by the general public and film industry alike. Gone with the Wind already is a classic. The fact that you think differently isn't going to change that, it just makes you wrong.

Saying that Gone with the Wind reminds you of Titanic is simply too ridiculous to comment on. How old are you anyways? (Obviously you saw Titanic before you saw Gone with the Wind or you would have never made that reference, and that's why I ask.)

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok
titanic will never have the staying power of Gone with the Wind.

That movie is still being quoted daily .. (not just the misquoted 'frankly scarlett' line .. but a ton of others)

it was a landmark film, and although some of it seems corny and dated, there is still a lot of sofistication in other parts.

Please dont compare it to that fly-by-night titanic movie ..


(by the way - i'm not even crazy about Gone With The Wind - but i respect its very important place in the history of cinema)

Well said. You summed up what I was saying in about half as many words.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by bwind22
? ? ? Okay, what is it then?



Are you seriously trying to sit here and argue that Ringu is more of a classic than Gone with the Wind? Once again, you are basing your definition of 'classic' off your own personal taste in movies. You said 'me' 3 times in that paragraph and we are talking about an objective phrase... It doesn't matter what the movie is to you, it matters how it is perceived by the general public and film industry alike. Gone with the Wind already is a classic. The fact that you think differently isn't going to change that, it just makes you wrong.

Saying that Gone with the Wind reminds you of Titanic is simply too ridiculous to comment on. How old are you anyways? (Obviously you saw Titanic before you saw Gone with the Wind or you would have never made that reference, and that's why I ask.)
Saying "Ringu" is a classic isnt just my personal meaning....you pretty much agree its going to become a classic in some years....To me it allready are....
Like I have tried to point out the term classic dont say anything about the age of the movie.....the term pretty much means well known...but when you are talking about a classic movie..what you need to think about is this:
audience (well known), impact and style

"Ringu" was made in 1998...making it seven years old....thats not important...what matter is: well known, impact and style

...and whats wrong using 'ME' ? I'm sure you know that it is individuales who change things...There isnt anything called an objective phrase....you could try to talk objective but its just an ilusión....:cool: (its still you)
The general public is you and ME...and a lot of others...
...and no I saw "Gone with the wind" long before "Titanic"

[slasherman]

Originally posted by urgeok
titanic will never have the staying power of Gone with the Wind.

Please dont compare it to that fly-by-night titanic movie ..

....you know that "Titanic" is the most successful movie of all time ?......

[urgeok]

Originally posted by slasherman
....you know that "Titanic" is the most successful movie of all time ?......

in a purely finantial way ..
its not a great movie and you never hear a soul mention it anymore.
It's not that old and it's already becoming quickly forgotten.

granted this might be a sign of the times .. the 'movie culture' is different now. There's always something bigger and better coming down the pipe to knock the last one out of our minds ..

but still, Titanic was a bloated extraveganza that did well for time but will never hold its own against the classics of days past because it didnt have the star power, and wasnt that good a story (other than the actual fact that the ship sunk)
It was bogged down with a completely gratuitous and unneccessary side story excecuted by a hamfisted director (something that works in action - not in historical drama)
The scope and depth of GWTW let alone the world class acting puts it miles above titanic.

Titanic will barely be remembered a few years from now ....

[hollywoodgothiq]

Okay, let me clarify a few things...

We shouldn't define classic strictly by its age in years. Generally speaking, a film is old enough to be considered a classic when those stylistic elements that once made it seem modern and comtemporary have become so dated that they now appear artificial and stylized. For example, Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe films with Vincent Price: when they came out, they were considered inferior to classic Universal horror movies, because Corman's films were in widescreen and color, and everyone "knew" that great horror movies only came in black-and-white. But forty years later, Corman's films look as stylized and artificial as anything from Universal; it's just a different kind of stylization.

As for oxymorons like "instant classic" and "modern classic," those are words people throw around because they like to heap superlatives on their favorie movie and they can't think of anything better to say. The closest they come to making any meanignful sense is in a case like RINGU, which is not only a great film but a film that establishes a set of conventions that become instantly recognized and repeated.

As for arguments about whether movies like GONE WITH THE WIND are classics, one should point out that there is a difference between a classic and a masterpiece. Like it or loathe it (I put myself in the latter category), GONE WITH THE WIND is an established classic of cinema by virtue of the place it holds in film history. It is reasonably easy, however, to make a case that is not a masterpiece but an overr-rated soap opera.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Okay, let me clarify a few things...

We shouldn't define classic strictly by its age in years. Generally speaking, a film is old enough to be considered a classic when those stylistic elements that once made it seem modern and comtemporary have become so dated that they now appear artificial and stylized. For example, Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe films with Vincent Price: when they came out, they were considered inferior to classic Universal horror movies, because Corman's films were in widescreen and color, and everyone "knew" that great horror movies only came in black-and-white. But forty years later, Corman's films look as stylized and artificial as anything from Universal; it's just a different kind of stylization.

As for oxymorons like "instant classic" and "modern classic," those are words people throw around because they like to heap superlatives on their favorie movie and they can't think of anything better to say. The closest they come to making any meanignful sense is in a case like RINGU, which is not only a great film but a film that establishes a set of conventions that become instantly recognized and repeated.

As for arguments about whether movies like GONE WITH THE WIND are classics, one should point out that there is a difference between a classic and a masterpiece. Like it or loathe it (I put myself in the latter category), GONE WITH THE WIND is an established classic of cinema by virtue of the place it holds in film history. It is reasonably easy, however, to make a case that is not a masterpiece but an overr-rated soap opera.
hey...that was great....but could you say a little bit more around this sentence :
"a film is old enough to be considered a classic when those stylistic elements that once made it seem modern and comtemporary have become so dated that they now appear artificial and stylized."

[hollywoodgothiq]

Gee, I was afraid I was being too long-winded in my previous post -- and now you want me to say more?

[I,ZOMBIE]

Originally posted by slasherman
"a film is old enough to be considered a classic when those stylistic elements that once made it seem modern and comtemporary have become so dated that they now appear artificial and stylized."

i like the way you worded that.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Gee, I was afraid I was being too long-winded in my previous post -- and now you want me to say more?
yes :D

[iamragmar]

I have a few old books about horror from the 60s and 70s that say the Night of the Living Dead and Nosferatu(1922) are shit. It sounds very odd nowadays, one book said "Nosfertu is too grotesque and has no art to it".

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by iamragmar
I have a few old books about horror from the 60s and 70s that say the Night of the Living Dead and Nosferatu(1922) are shit. It sounds very odd nowadays, one book said "Nosfertu is too grotesque and has no art to it".

I have to agree about NOSFERATU. The line I like to use about that film is in regards to the image restoration done for the film's release on laserdisc and later DVD. The people involved in the restoratin bragged about the background details now visible in the sets. "Great," I thought, "now we can -- quite literally -- WATCH THE PAINT DRY!"

[ADOM]

Hollywodgothiq, your statement about stylized elements, etc perfectly points out what I was thinking, but could not articulate, about how with technology changing the face of movies so quickly classics may be made faster now than they were before. Jurassic Park is a classic (or a curse) in the sense that it ushered in the wide use of CG, like King Kong set the stage for stop motion monsters even though it had been done years earlier. The big movies make the style acceptable to the public, then it becomes commonplace and eventually only a few movies that use that style are still worth watching.

The fact that many people would not see many classic films is just part of being a classic. People need to have an appreciation for the time period and styles used to want to see a classic film.

GONE WITH THE WIND has got to be one of the worst classics ever made, but it set the stage for every chick that follows it. Thankfully they have gotten shorter (although that is changing too).

[iamragmar]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
I have to agree about NOSFERATU. The line I like to use about that film is in regards to the image restoration done for the film's release on laserdisc and later DVD. The people involved in the restoratin bragged about the background details now visible in the sets. "Great," I thought, "now we can -- quite literally -- WATCH THE PAINT DRY!"

Do you not like Nosferatu or do you just have a problem with the restoration.

Even though people might not need to watch the films that started a trend, I cant say they are not worth watching because so many films have done the same, there is always a strange freshness that is hard to pinpoint about the films even if they are not terribly exciting.

[hollywoodgothiq]

I do not like any version of the original NOSFERATU, and believe me I've seen half a dozen over the years -- and the damn thing keeps getting longer every time I see it!

First there was the 16mm "condensed" version I saw in high school -- kind of like a Reader's Digest condensed book -- cut down to approximately forty-five minutes (no Renfield or Professor Van Helsing character).

Then there was the feature length version they used to show on PBS, but the projection speed was too fast, speeding up the action. Then the laserdisc and DVD fixed that problem, slowing the action back down.

Then there was the time I saw it with a live orchestra performing a recreation of the original music score. The print screened was from Germany (with German subtitles) and contained some footage not seen in export prints, and there was an intermission halfway through, just to drag out things even further.

In between there have been a couple of VHS tapes with new music added (including one with Goth-rock songs by Type-O Negative)

God, I've given that movie every chance, and I never want to see it again!

[slasherman]

Originally posted by ADOM
Jurassic Park is a classic (or a curse) in the sense that it ushered in the wide use of CG,
I thought that cgi effect was first used in "The Abyss"..then developed as time went by...:confused:

[ADOM]

My key words there were "wide use". The Abyss helped develop the craft, but after JP anything with CG, good or bad, was considered cutting edge, for awhile. It's like the morphing effect in T-2. The technology existed for them to develop that software, but once they did everybody was morphing into something.

Jurassic Park set the standard for dinosaurs and other monster F/X for the films that followed, just like King Kong did for stop motion (even though other films used stop motion before that) and Godzilla did for guys in rubber suits.

[slasherman]

Originally posted by ADOM

Jurassic Park set the standard for dinosaurs and other monster F/X for the films that followed, just like King Kong did for stop motion (even though other films used stop motion before that) and Godzilla did for guys in rubber suits.
hmm guess your right about that...have you seen "Young Sherlock Holmes" ? They used some kind of new computer animation there too....anyway shall I call you "iamragmar" or "ADOM"
:confused:

[ADOM]

Originally posted by slasherman
hmm guess your right about that...have you seen "Young Sherlock Holmes" ? They used some kind of new computer animation there too....anyway shall I call you "iamragmar" or "ADOM"
:confused:

Actually we are two different people who chose the same avatar from the ones the forum provides. I am too lazy to shrink anything to the 100x100 limit or whatever it is and upload it.

The animation in Young Sherlock Holmes had a very stop motion look to it. I think that was the beginnings of good CG, where they give the CG models physical things to relate to. The dinos in JP were mostly patterned after the movement of real animals, not just animated by a computer cartoonist, which is one reason they look better than so many that follow.

[urgeok]

the CG in the abyss certainly opened the door to new possibilities .. it was used to even greater extent in Terminator 2 ..

metallic morphing where reflections changed in the morphing surface appropriately ...
It looks amazing and can now take us places where we could never go properly before.

the charm of the old FX are cool in their own way - but i remember as a kid wishing they could make things look better..

And now they do ...
The trick is to just blend in the CGI where absolutely nessessary - complex monsters, alien landscapes, etc .... not use it to replace everything ...

[slasherman]

Originally posted by urgeok
...
The trick is to just blend in the CGI where absolutely nessessary - complex monsters, alien landscapes, etc .... not use it to replace everything ...
..or they can try not to hide it...like in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (2004) were CGI help the movie look more like a comic strip....
..and you know nearly every actor wants to act againts something(even a puppet) ...not against air (blue/green screen).....

[ADOM]

Originally posted by slasherman
..or they can try not to hide it...like in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (2004) were CGI help the movie look more like a comic strip....
..and you know nearly every actor wants to act againts something(even a puppet) ...not against air (blue/green screen).....

I liked the way Sky Captian "embraced" the comic look of it's CGI. I wish HULK had done the same thing and had everything except the actors be CG, then the HULK would have blended in better.

[Amalthea]

Its just born a classic film.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by ADOM
I liked the way Sky Captian "embraced" the comic look of it's CGI. I wish HULK had done the same thing and had everything except the actors be CG, then the HULK would have blended in better.


sky captain was a beautiful film .. and yes - a perfect example of CGI being used the way it should be ... to create an impossible world ..

[slasherman]

Originally posted by ADOM
I liked the way Sky Captian "embraced" the comic look of it's CGI. I wish HULK had done the same thing and had everything except the actors be CG, then the HULK would have blended in better.
yeah I'm an old Hulk fan...I saw him first in the Fantastic 4 comic strip...Then he got his own comic strip...and then he got his own tv series which I enjoyed as a kid.....I think they did a great thing by spraying Luo Feringno green :D
...but I dont think director Ang Lee(?) had the right passion to make a movie about Hulk...He cant have had.... cause Hulk looked like a overblown green mashmellow :mad:

[alkytrio666]

I'd say anything 10 years or older that was considered an "amazing" film could be considered a classic...but the real classics go way back.

[GOODandEVIL666]

i agree

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
I'd say anything 10 years or older that was considered an "amazing" film could be considered a classic...but the real classics go way back.

I wouldn't say 1995 is considered classic. Stretch it to 15 or so and I'd agree with you.

[jay o2 waster]

.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by jay o2 waster
.

that is a classic for the forums sake - but i think the thread was more about semantics

[ShankS]

Originally posted by ShankS
.



Originally posted by jay o2 waster
.



check the 2nd page :p

[urgeok]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
I'd say anything 10 years or older that was considered an "amazing" film could be considered a classic...but the real classics go way back.

a classic can be a current movie.
some are classics the dasy they are released ..
i dont think time always determines the quality of a film ..


i.e. The Godfather - was a classic from day one.

[surfnazi]

A classic doesn't have to be old, as someone before me mentioned classics can be just that from the day they're released. I believe even films that have come out in the last two years (not necessarily horror) can be considered classics in my standards.