how old is classic?
 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 ...

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.

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.

20 years old or older.

That's the notion I got too. :)

yeah thats what i am saying.

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

(i think evil dead is a classic)

well duh, lol j/k.

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

.

and...?

you can work it out

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....:)

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.

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

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.

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....

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:

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

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 ..

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

that is my point.

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)

? ? ? 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.)

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

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"