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...