Modern day classics

We might need to sharpen further our definition of 'classic.'

 

The word "classic" is subjective in its own right.

 

God, do I agree with this. Once 3D is the standard medium, that movie is going to fall completely by the wayside. Now that it's on cable I have tried to watch it as just a movie, and man oh man is it awful.

 

harry potter -- books & movies

 

A lot of breakthroughs don't hold up that well objectively, though. Compare a Fincher suspense film to a Hitchock one, for example. Fincher's are just objectively better. But Hitchcock's are still classics.

I think Avatar will be considered a classic BECAUSE of what you state - how 3D will progress. People won't forget what got the ball rolling.

 

I kind of think it's better to leave it somewhat open-ended.

 

Many years from now, someone will make a 5-D movie about a young boy who lives in the bowels of a megamall and keeps a popular blog updated for his absent drunken uncle with a plot that somehow rediscovers James Cameron.

 

'Studied' 100 years from now is very different from 'enjoyed' 100 years from now. We seem to be conflating the two.

And I'm not sure how you can say that Fincher is 'objectively' better than Hitchcock.

 

The fuck does "objectively better" mean? Fight Club is the only David Fincher movie I like even half as much as Vertigo.

 

A breakthrough and a classic are not the same thing.


Avatar might be considered a breakthrough, but a classic? ... man that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

I have a hard time believing someone could watch something like "Rear Window," classic as it is, in 2012 and be the least bit on the edge of their seat. Some of it is so corny, both story and effects, that it would be unwatchable if it came out today. But it's still a classic and I still love it because I understand the historical significance.

 

Meaning if you put their films side by side, without the context of understanding what era they came from, the limitations they were working within, etc., etc.