What makes a classic ?

[Mimmsicle]

[color=chocolate]I found myself thinking about this. I haven?t come up with an answer myself, so I?d like to hear your views on the matter.

[color=black]What makes a movie a [I]classic[/I] ?
Are there certain elements that need to be met ( plot, design etc ) ?
Is a movie more of a classic when it has worldwide acceptance or a small but dedicated following ? [SIZE=1](or is a small following the basis for a cult-movie?)[/SIZE]
What are the criteria?s necessary for a movie to be classic ?
Do you base it on a personal or professional point of view ? or both ?[/color]

Sorry if this has been done before. If that is the case then the delete-button is over there *points*

- Mimmi[/color]

[Queen Asuka]

[color=hotpink][size=1]I'm not too sure, but in my opinion a classic is something that is sort of before it's time and that all other movies following take elements from that movie and incorporate them into their own.

The classic I keep thinking of is the Star Wars trilogy. Lucas had SO MANY ideas that he just couldn't use because of limited technology, so he made do with what he had and the movies are brilliant to have been made in the 70s. Now that he HAS that available technology to make them what he wanted, they lack that certain magic because the effects are nothing new or special.

Do you see what I mean?[/color][/size]

[destro53]

Yea, exactly. That is so true. Episodes IV-VI were classics. They looked real, even though they used technology that they now consider ancient. But Episodes I-III are just nothing special. They're just more good movie's without any real special special effects.

[Brasil]

I might repeat some things Queen Asuka has said, so...yeah.

The term, "classic," seems to be tossed around loosely these days. Really, I think it's lost all meaning when movies like...Legally Blonde are being labeled as "Instant Comedic Classic!!!"

The way I look at it, a "classic" needs to have a certain level of...filmmaking expertise. Not only looking at special effects, but also direction, cinematography, writing, characterization.

I mean, if we look at Star Wars, the Original Trilogy is classic. Undeniably classic. It leaves an indelible mark on filmmaking. It's directed competently, filmed competently, written competently. It's done [i]well[/i]. Looking at the Prequels, they suck no matter what. Destro, the Prequels are not "just more good movie's without any real special special effects." I agree that they feature no "really special" special effects, but they are certainly not good movies. The writing is awful, the direction is...blind, and the acting is like cardboard. (Jake Lloyd? Give me a break. Hayden Christensen? Please. Natalie Portman? Wha?) Even Yoda sucked (to put it bluntly, lol). His CG was horrid, his dialogue worse, and he lacked the..."realness" of his muppet self in Empire Strikes Back.

But enough about Star Wars. Original Trilogy=classic because of high-caliber moviemaking.

My list of classics include:

Nosferatu.
King Kong (1933).
Casablanca.
The Graduate.
Taxi Driver.
This Is Spinal Tap.
When Harry Met Sally.

****Two of those are Rob Reiner films...hmmm****

Those are high-caliber films...classics. Unsurpassed as of today in terms of scope, presentation, idea, and most importantly, [i]audience connection[/i].

What movies I don't consider classics:

Generally most romantic comedy, excluding When Harry Met Sally.

X2. It's typical action/adventure comic book fare. It's an example of what not to do in a screenplay.

The Matrix (1 and 2). I do not feel they're perfect films and they don't knock my skirt up like Spinal Tap does. M1 is a fun movie and a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon, but it's by no means "classic," and Reloaded is...poorly, poorly executed. There is a distinct difference between M1 and Reloaded, both in tone, material, and presentation. The Wachowskis made M1 as a movie. They made Reloaded as an pretentious, self-puffing essay. Not classic, just...imperfection. There were some good ideas in Reloaded, Smith especially (that was a genius subplot), but the movie falls so flat.

So, in order for a movie to be considered "classic" in my book, it has to be a well-rounded picture, not lopsided to one idea, not lopsided to one scene.

[Queen Asuka]

[color=hotpink][size=1]I think that the first Matrix movie could be considered a classic, seeing as how it pretty much revolutionized action movies from then on out. Anytime you see a fight scene, it's always characterized as "Matrix style fighting" or as having "Matrix style special effects." The storyline was pretty unique and the plot and how it was executed was nice.

And I'm pretty much with you about the Star Wars prequels. They are just awful. They lack a lot of the passion that they had in the original trilogy. I sure do love Star Wars. (Hyuk Hyuk?)[/color][/size]

[Shinmaru]

I pretty much agree with PoisonTongue.

To be truly considered a classic film, a movie has to do just about everything well. Plot, characterization, cinematography, editing, direction, etc.

Also, to be considered a classic, I think a movie should have the elements that allow it to be considered a great movie not just in the timeframe in which it was released but in just about any moviegoing era.

Star Wars was mentioned. Star Wars (the original trilogy) has the elements (exciting plot, great characters, great direction, etc.) that enable the first three movies to be great movies no matter where and when they're seen. I mean, you have to be pretty cold-hearted not to enjoy Star Wars on at least [i]some[/i] level.

And I also agree that the term "classic" is thrown around way too much nowadays...almost to the point where it's just a watered down description of a film. I hope that we never truly come to the time that the word classic (in the context of films) means absolutely nothing. That would be a very sad time, indeed.

[XxmagentaxX]

A classic movie is something that never really ages... its set in the perfest time and place, and everyone can somehow relate to it. And you can watch it over and over again and eventually know it all by heart and never get sick of it....

[Mimmsicle]

[QUOTE]Really, I think it's lost all meaning when movies like...Legally Blonde are being labeled as "Instant Comedic Classic!!!"[/QUOTE][color=chocolate]people say that ?? scary...

Can there be different types of classics?
[b]Person-classic[/b]
As in: your circle of friends/family, where a movie is close to your heart and stands the test of time ....
[b]Genre-classic[/b]
[insert genre here], where the movie stood out in its field, but perhaps not in the world of classics as a whole...

Would you consider it to be blasphemy if one calls a movie that is not up to the standards of the "classic-rating", a classic ?
seeing as we all might have different views of what is truly original, perfectly executed and so forth...

and also... can a remake of a classic ever be eligible for classic-status ?
some movies "borrow" ideas from other movies.. when is it anything beyond a duplicate of what's been done and when is it regarded as innovative and fresh ?

[SIZE=1]dunno if I am making sense in my questions, but I hope the brains of those superior of mine get what I'm saying :cross: [/SIZE]

- Mimmi[/color]

[Brasil]

OK, I was in the shower, and I realized that there's a distinction we might be forgetting about.

Classic vs masterpiece.

I don't have too much time to go into it, as class starts in under an hour, but classic can stand the test of time (much how someone said previously, sorry I can't name names...no time lol), while a masterpiece is something that (for lack of a better phrase) makes your jaw drop.

Now here's the interesting thing.

Classics can be masterpieces, and masterpieces can be classics, but not all the time.

Pulp Fiction, which I feel is one of the most perfect films ever made, is a masterpiece AND classic, as it has stood the test of time and fans are still enthralled by it in 2003, 8 years after its release.

The original King Kong is a masterpiece that stands the test of time, therefore achieving both classic and masterpiece status.

Matrix 1, certainly a "masterpiece" in most senses of the word, but I don't see it achieving classic status like Pulp Fiction or King Kong.

Regarding remakes,

King Kong. The remake sucked and got blasted by critics. The public hated it, and it had no staying power at all. Its execution was totally weak, and the acting was...abysmal. Thus, while 1933 was a classic, the 70s remake was most certainly not.

Psycho. Do I really need to describe how horrible the remake was compared to the Hitchcock classic/masterpiece original, or compared to suspense thrillers in general?

I'll EDIT more in later.

Quick EDIT: Asuka, don't worry. We're all Star Wars geeks in some form or another. ;)

[Shinmaru]

I've somehow managed to stay away from the remake of [i]Psycho[/i] and its many sequels. Something just tells me they won't be good at all. I wonder what it is ~_^

I think that's a very good point. A film could be able to stand the test of time but not be a masterpiece and at the same time, a masterpiece could be very good in its era but maybe not in another. It all depends on the perception of the people who watch the movies.

[Guest Zet]

I actually beleive that any movie could be a classic to anyone at any time. People saying "Thats a classic" are just stating their oppinion. But this preticular oppinion is based on facts that have been stated, its widely accepted by the majorety, everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention it, and lastly, I dont beleive you can call it a classic untill at least 5 years after its been given out to the populous. A really good movie can become a classic after its been "broken in". I dont beleive cult movies can be considered classics by everyone because of what Ive stated before, but in the clut genre, some cult movies could be considered classics.

[Guest rttocs77]

We discussed this in film school this summer. I don't really think there are too many specific guidlines in designating a film "classic." I do believe, however, that a film cannot be considered classic until a little while (years) after its theatrical release. It may take that long for it to sink in and for people to realize how powerful it was.

I use Stanley Kubrick's [i] A Clockwork Orange [/i] for an example. It did horribly on its initial released and was barraded by the critics. It just takes time. You will [i] know [/i] when a film is (or becomes) a classic.

[Artemis]

I think "classic" denotes a sort of "test of time" that the movie has passed. I'm not exactly sure how long that should be, but a "classic" is something that people can still appreciate years after it was made. A "classic" book usually has some sort of resounding theme that transcends time (usually some aspect of human nature). I think that applies to movies as well.
I like the differientation b/t "masterpieces" and "classics". I think it's true. Masterpieces are more a demonstration of incredible artistry. The themes may not be as good, but the effects/cinematography and all the other technical aspects are far above par. They precedents in movie-making.
Classic that's not a masterpiece: Princess Bride--we will watch it forever, but there was nothing particularly incredible about how they made it.
Masterpiece that's not a classic: Matrix 1 (like Poison Tongue, I think that's the best example). It has the potential (I suppose) to become a classic. (it needs more time) But I don't see it as becoming one. It will always been mentioned in terms of its effects, not it's themes.
Classic Masterpiece: the original Star Wars trilogy--it's been mentioned enough before.
I also believe there are classics that reside w/in a person's social circle/family. Ex. My friends and I consider "1776" a classic (hilarious musical about the Declaration of Independence). For my family, the big classic is "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." (another fantastic comedy!! "Rat Race" doesn't even come close!)
Does anyone else consider "A Christmas Story" a classic? I think it is. (I quote it all the time...Then again...I also quote "Good Burger"..."I've always wanted to shave a Martian" *whips out razor* "Got a Martian?") :laugh:
Enough from me! (this is what happens when I got to Starbucks at 10:30...) :twitch: