Popular films: enjoy them while they're here....

[Warped9]

An interesting article in the Toronto Sun about popluar films and that no matter how popular or successful they might be that doesn't guarantee them status as classics: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/05/0...-great-but-it-wont-be-remembered-as-a-classic

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[MacLeod]

Whilst I agree with the articles sentiment, can we really say which film will or won't become a classic surely that is for test of time.

 

[Warped9]

Whilst I agree with the articles sentiment, can we really say which film will or won't become a classic surely that is for test of time.

Ultimately, no. But I think he makes a fair point in terms of the unlikelihood of popular popcorn flicks becoming classics.

He cited the '77 Superman as an example. I was excited for that film's debut back in the day and when I finally saw it I was quite pleased. But time has not been kind to it (in certain respects and in my opinion) and it certainly isn't a film I would call "classic." Such films can still be enjoyed, but they're not something I'd cite as something to stand the test of time to future generations.

 

[MacLeod]

If we take two Superman films the 1978 Superman and the more recent Man of Steel, will MoS be as fondly remember in 2050 as the 1978 film is today? Over 35 years after it's release?

 

[Warped9]

If we take two Superman films the 1978 Superman and the more recent Man of Steel, will MoS be as fondly remember in 2050 as the 1978 film is today? Over 35 years after it's release?

Who can say? Probably not. But as fondly as some might look at the '78 Superman the question is whether future generations will see it the same way. Ask anyone under 30 what they think of the film, if they have even seen it. Ask anyone under 20.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Who can say? Probably not. But as fondly as some might look at the '78 Superman the question is whether future generations will see it the same way. Ask anyone under 30 what they think of the film, if they have even seen it. Ask anyone under 20.

To be fair, most of the current generation of 20 year olds haven't seen any old movies, including classics like "To Kill a Mockingbird". I've even met one or two who wouldn't watch a movie older than themselves by principle.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I've met some like that, but as they get older then who knows?

 

[Vanyel]

To be fair, most of the current generation of 20 year olds haven't seen any old movies, including classics like "To Kill a Mockingbird". I've even met one or two who wouldn't watch a movie older than themselves by principle.

I know people my age 40+ who won't watch a black and white movie. Also there are many who can tell you a song came from The Sound of Music but have never seen the movie or play and have no intention of seeing any musical because it's not realistic for a person to just start singing. Yeah but they will debate how transporters and FTL drives could be made.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

^^ I've met some like that, but as they get older then who knows?

So, the 20 year olds who don't care about "Superman - The Movie" might care about it in ten or twenty years?

 

[Warped9]

So, the 20 year olds who don't care about "Superman - The Movie" might care about it in ten or twenty years?

No, I mean it's easy to generalize. I have met younger people who are interested in older films. Whether they consider what we think as classic to be classic in their eyes is another question.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Superman's not a classic movie because new actors are portraying the character? That's a strange bit of logic, considering I consider Connery James Bond just as classic as Reeve's Superman movie. But we can all tell stories for and against why these movies can be or can't be considered "classic", so it's tough to debate regardless. Example, my friend's 8 year old son loves that Superman movie. It helps that they actually made them for families back them, too. Yet others will tell me the young ones won't bother with something so old.

What's the definition of classic being used, anyways?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Whether something becomes iconic or not will become so regardless of Mr Kirkland's opinion. Most things simply don't have longevity in pop culture much less become iconic. This latest Captain America film may not become iconic but the character certainly is iconic, as is Superman, regardless of interpretations having been superseded. This article reminds me more of another posted here about how adults shouldn't waste time on superhero films.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I think it's absolutely true that popular movies won't automatically become classics.

I think it's total bs that popular movies can't become classics.

Putting down an entire genre as doomed to oblivion is an even dumber statement, and the 'evidence' provided by this article is really laughable.

No one remembers the old superhero movies from the 70s and 80s, you say? Could that, maybe, just possibly be because most of them weren't actually well made in the first place? Superman I and II were the only ones even worth being called movies at all (and Batman, though that's almost a generation further) - they're also, incidentally, the ones that are remembered by quite a few people.

Christopher Reeve didn't get to own the role forever? Well... who cares? Other people have played Dorothy, too, and done perfectly good jobs. Yet the author doesn't think that harms the Wizard of Oz at all.

And if we're going to talk about how previous popular things have now become 'quaint artifacts from movie history', here's a starting list: Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Apocalypse Now, Dr. Strangelove. And what the hell is City Lights to begin with? I've literally never even heard the name of that so-called classic before.

Also, interesting that Star Wars (which honestly doesn't deserve 'classic' status, either) is noted as the intriguing exception to the rule that mainstream popular movies can't become classic. Because, apparently, Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz and the Godfather weren't popular movies with the mainstream...

 

[MacLeod]

I know people my age 40+ who won't watch a black and white movie. Also there are many who can tell you a song came from The Sound of Music but have never seen the movie or play and have no intention of seeing any musical because it's not realistic for a person to just start singing. Yeah but they will debate how transporters and FTL drives could be made.

Nothing wrong with B&W movies, there is actually a few in my DVD/blu-ray collection. Off the top of my head The Caine Mutiny, Dr. Strangelove or How I loved to stop worrying and Love the Bomb and The Longest Day. But if the story appeals to me or I think I will like it I'll give it a watch. I can always change the channel, switch the TV off if I don't like it regardless if it's in colour or B&W.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I have more B&W movies in my DVD collection than color. I love old movies. I guess I'm an anti-Millennial-- I prefer stuff from before I was born.

And initial popularity or financial success has nothing to do with classic status. A lot of movies that are now considered classics actually did poorly when they were initially released. It's A Wonderful Life springs to mind, as well as The Wizard of Oz. I'm pretty sure Citizen Kane didn't do very well, either.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

No, I mean it's easy to generalize. I have met younger people who are interested in older films. Whether they consider what we think as classic to be classic in their eyes is another question.

Well, of course, there are some younger people who are interested in older films. But how many, that's the question.

And your further argument falls very flat, too, because that comes down to personal taste. I watched "The Wizard of Oz" only last year, and while I can appreciate what some people might see in it (especially if they grew up with it), I didn't care for it at all. When I saw "Gone with the Wind" as a teenager, I found it utterly boring. But that's a matter of my personal taste. One person does not decide what's a classic and what isn't. Culture/society does.

 

[Warped9]

Of course no one individual decides what a classic is, in the broader sense. I am not arguing that. We all have our personal likes and dislikes.

And also a character can be iconic even if no one individual film featuring said character is ever considered classic.


I believe it was mentioned upthread: what defines a classic?

I think it must be something more than simply a work that speaks to successive generations. I would think it must also exhibit other qualities that warrant it being defined as classic. I would think age and familiarity also play a role and that the work not fall into near total obscurity.

Many films have been made about Robin Hood, but I believe the Errol Flynn version is the only one considered classic. The same can be said of Scrooge where the 1951 Alastair Sim version is often cited as definitive and classic even tough it deviates from the original literature. Of all the Bond films perhaps Goldfinger is the one most likely to earn the classic designation, possibly because relatively early on it encapsulated pretty much all the familiar Bond tropes.

And there might be two definitions of classic at play here. One definition based on a work's age and the period from which it originates and another based on calibre and ability to speak to successive generations.

Finally one needn't like a film to be able to acknowledge it as classic.

 

[Relayer1]

I'd say the first two Reeve Superman movies HAVE made it as classics, in a way that the Batman and other superhero movies could not.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe probably will stand the test of time. Not as individual 'classic' movies, good as some have been, but as a pivotal event. A new(ish) way of doing things and a groundbreaking success. It's very interconnectedness precludes any chance of one individual movie becoming iconic.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Yet I can see the origins of the Marvel style in film back into earlier films.

What makes the Marvel films so pivotal? The only truly (somewhat) novel characteristic they exhibit is polish in terms of film making resources now being able to depict superhero action pretty much seamlessly. And the current Marvel films didn't even originate that. They do manage to present many works all part of a larger continuity, but that isn't really new either.

What do you think makes them so pivotal?

 

[Relayer1]

^ You are right in that there's nothing new. Stylistically, effects, larger continuity etc. etc. aren't in isolation, but putting them all together is.

The sheer size and scope together with the quality of writing, performance and visuals is unprecedented. Most of the studio's are thinking of their own shared universes of various kinds. It has been groundbreaking. Marvel are the first of its kind...