PDA

View Full Version : What movies will be classics?



Erts
2009-05-29, 05:40 PM
From the last fifteen years, what movies will people fondly look back on?

Dhavaer
2009-05-29, 05:50 PM
The Eye of Argon, except it's not a movie, not a classic and might be more than 15 years old.

Maybe Watchmen? Pirates of the Caribbean might have a Star Wars-like longevity.

Faulty
2009-05-29, 05:51 PM
Maybe Watchmen?

Watchmen wasn't THAT good.

I like to think that Old Boy will be a foreign film classic.

Erts
2009-05-29, 05:54 PM
Huh...
Dark Knight anyone?
Also, the new star wars, Fight Club, maybe the Harry Potter movies... (Very popular with people my age.)
Pulp Fiction is another.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-29, 05:55 PM
Watchmen wasn't THAT good.

I like to think that Old Boy will be a foreign film classic.

I disagree.

Finding Nemo will probably be a classic for kids....not sure about any others really

Llama231
2009-05-29, 05:57 PM
Yeah...
I'm afraid that it's going to be the Dark Knight.

Faulty
2009-05-29, 05:59 PM
I disagree.

Finding Nemo will probably be a classic for kids....not sure about any others really


I liked it, but I think it will only maintain popularity amongst a certain percentage of Watchmen fans.

As for Finding Nemo, I think a lot of Pixar movies will be animated classics. Wall-E was pretty awesome.

Someone mentioned Fight Club, I think that's already classic. :smallbiggrin:

Erts
2009-05-29, 06:02 PM
The new Star Trek.
Shrek.
Yeah, Pixar as well.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-29, 06:03 PM
I liked it, but I think it will only maintain popularity amongst a certain percentage of Watchmen fans.

As for Finding Nemo, I think a lot of Pixar movies will be animated classics. Wall-E was pretty awesome.

Someone mentioned Fight Club, I think that's already classic. :smallbiggrin:

Well...its not based purely on just you liking it :smallwink:

It did very well for a comic book movie, and the comic -itself- is a classic. It stands to reason the movie made out of it should be a classic in its own right as well.

Starscream
2009-05-29, 06:09 PM
Dark Knight, Dark City, everything by Pixar, maybe the first Matrix, the Lord of the Rings movies, the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, much of Tarantino's stuff.

Jamin
2009-05-29, 06:15 PM
Pirates of the Caribbean will not be a classic. the 2nd and 3rd movies are just too bizarre to be seen as anything but disappointments.

Mando Knight
2009-05-29, 06:20 PM
...Other than Pixar, there's little that I would qualify as a classic.

Lord of the Rings, probably.

BlueWizard
2009-05-29, 06:22 PM
Lord of the Rings definitely.

Erts
2009-05-29, 06:22 PM
If Lord of the Rings is not there, then there is something wrong with this future.

raitalin
2009-05-29, 06:31 PM
Yep, LotR and Pixar's stuff seems the most obvious. Also, Studio Ghibli's stuff is going to be appreciated by kids for a long time, or at least my kids.

Watchmen won't have the staying power of the first & second Spiderman or The Dark Knight.

Pirates...meh, I don't know. It was good, but Potter is definitely the stronger of those two franchises. Potter's certainly a kid's classic.

I guess the new Star Wars is classic by association, though we never would've made it past Ep.1 if they were released in order.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-29, 06:33 PM
Watchmen won't have the staying power of the first & second Spiderman or The Dark Knight.

I've gotta ask.....why? The first two Spider-mans were awful...why would they be classics when Watchmen wouldn't be? What makes those comics so much more classic then the work that -brought- dark and edgey to the forfront

Erts
2009-05-29, 06:43 PM
Austin Powers?

bladedSmoke
2009-05-29, 06:48 PM
Wanted.

<.<

>.>

What?

Whaaaat? It was freaking awesome.

Haruki-kun
2009-05-29, 07:04 PM
I disagree.

Finding Nemo will probably be a classic for kids....not sure about any others really

For kids??? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnimationAgeGhetto)

Jahkaivah
2009-05-29, 07:07 PM
I reckon Harry Potter and Watchmen wont as adaptions are only remembered if they outshine the source material.

Most stuff by Pixar (especially Finding Nemo and Wall-E).

Definitely the Dark Knight and Lord of the Rings.


Pirates of the Caribbean will not be a classic. the 2nd and 3rd movies are just too bizarre to be seen as anything but disappointments.

Having diassapointing sequels isn't going to hold the original back. (For examples, look at Gremlins, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, the original Star Wars trilogy)

The first Pirates of the Carribean, Shrek and Matrix films for this reason.

Canadian
2009-05-29, 07:24 PM
I agree with the Matrix. Also Fight Club. Anything by any of the current big name directors. Anything starring Bruce Willis. He's more or less the Humphrey Bogart or John Wayne of this generation.

rubakhin
2009-05-29, 07:42 PM
For at least the next fifty years or so? *mulls it over* Fight Club, Trainspotting, Amores Perros, Requiem for a Dream, The Silence of the Lambs, Amélie, the Trois Coleurs films, City of God, Braveheart, 13 Tzameti, Taegukgi, Xiu Xiu the Sent Down Girl, Boys Don't Cry, Downfall, Mysterious Skin, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Russian Ark, Burnt by the Sun. Oh, and Millennium Actress, Iron Giant ... Undoubtably the Pixar and Ghibli stuff too.

Or did you mean like, by normal people, and not obsessive film nerds such as myself? :smallbiggrin:

Joran
2009-05-29, 07:45 PM
A couple obvious ones people seem to be missing:

Titanic (1997)

Forrest Gump (1994)

Shawshank Redemption (1994): Though I can be swayed off of this.

I'd also argue that Jerry MacGuire (1996) will be a classic.

One that I considered, but eventually eliminated:

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Erts
2009-05-29, 07:47 PM
Your right...
Can't believe I forgot Titanic and Forest Gump.

And Jurassic Park.

Jahkaivah
2009-05-29, 07:52 PM
A couple obvious ones people seem to be missing:

Titanic (1997)

Forrest Gump (1994)

Shawshank Redemption (1994): Though I can be swayed off of this.

I'd also argue that Jerry MacGuire (1996) will be a classic.

One that I considered, but eventually eliminated:

Pulp Fiction (1994)

I'm filing films from the early 90s as old enough to already know whether or not they are classics and they are.

Raistlin1040
2009-05-29, 07:55 PM
I vote Fight Club a million times.

Joran
2009-05-29, 07:55 PM
I'm filing films from the early 90s as old enough to already know whether or not they are classics and they are.

He said 15 years! ;)

Jurassic Park is actually 16 years old, but yes, very much so a classic.

Schindler's List (1993) is also 16 years old, but will be a classic.

Saving Private Ryan (1998) is going to be a classic, I feel.

BTW, anyone starting to feel old?

rubakhin
2009-05-29, 07:58 PM
BTW, anyone starting to feel old?

Yes. :smallfrown:

Canadian
2009-05-29, 08:00 PM
Yes. :smallfrown:

How old are you and how old do you feel?

Berserk Monk
2009-05-29, 08:01 PM
Maybe Watchmen?

The graphic novel's a classic. The movie was an insult to Alan Moore and all he is, and everything he created.

Gotta say the Dark Knight and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Spiderman also make the list.

Joran
2009-05-29, 09:01 PM
How old are you and how old do you feel?

I'm 27, and I feel somewhere in my early 30's. Personally for me, the 90's don't feel that long ago and then suddenly I realize that the early 90's are almost 20 years ago.

I've also started getting urges to tell kids to get off my lawn =P

doliest
2009-05-29, 10:49 PM
So long and yet no one has mentioned the saw series? It's the only really decent horror series coming out anymore, unless you count those awful japanese flicks and that ripoff hostel. I wouldn't say Dark Knight will be a classic, it was good but not really classic material, atleast by my book.

snoopy13a
2009-05-29, 11:09 PM
I don't think Dark Knight will be a classic. The '89 film Batman recieved the same sort of praise and acclaim as the Dark Knight and it isn't considered a classic. Everyone was saying that the first Spiderman movie would be a classic and I don't believe anyone has mentioned it on this thread.

Shawshank is a classic. Titanic and Saving Private Ryan are arguably classics as well. Not too many films make it to "classic". Braveheart and Gladitator, both Academy Award winning films do not.

Honestly, I'd leave it as:

1) Shawshank

and maybe

2) Titanic

3) Saving Private Ryan

13_CBS
2009-05-29, 11:15 PM
Hrm...isn't Citizen Kane considered to be a classic? And wasn't it extremely unpopular around the time it was released?

I get the feeling that a lot of future "classics" will be of obscure, cult-status movies (or even ones regarded as being terrible today but awesome later).

Lord Seth
2009-05-30, 12:32 AM
I've gotta ask.....why? The first two Spider-mans were awful...Are you joking?

No, seriously. Are you?


why would they be classics when Watchmen wouldn't be? What makes those comics so much more classic then the work that -brought- dark and edgey to the forfront...huh?

The "work that brought dark and edgy to the forefront" was the original Watchmen comic, not the adaptation that came out decades later and was late to the party.


Everyone was saying that the first Spiderman movie would be a classic and I don't believe anyone has mentioned it on this thread.It was mentioned. The second outshined the first though. Then came the third which messed the whole thing up.

Surrealistik
2009-05-30, 12:34 AM
Memento, to be certain.

Mystic Muse
2009-05-30, 02:20 AM
I honestly don't think saw will become a classic. from what I know (which isn't much. I haven't seen it and I don't want to EVER) it's a brutal slash em up like most horror movies.

I think the first two spidermans were good and the third bombed. you don't even want to get me STARTED on the third.

there will definitely be a few kids movies as classics but others won't make it. DEFINITELY shrek since it'll work for both kids and adults which is what some classics need to appeal to in order to become classic. and I think monsters inc wins over Nemo but that's my opinion.

there have been a lot of movies in the last fifteen years and I'm not sure of any that spring to mind except for dark knight. Xmen won't, constantine won't, spiderman probably won't, hulk won't, lots of them won't I don't believe.

hmm after reading that TVropes article I suddenly have an urge to watch cartoons.

time for DARKWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING DUCK! followed by ducktales and a small dosage of donald duck cartoons.:smallbiggrin:(yes I'm actually going to do this. JUST TRY AND STOP ME!)

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 02:25 AM
Are you joking?

No, seriously. Are you?

...huh?

The "work that brought dark and edgy to the forefront" was the original Watchmen comic, not the adaptation that came out decades later and was late to the party.

It was mentioned. The second outshined the first though. Then came the third which messed the whole thing up.

Yes.....yes I am....they were awful. The whole trilogy is.

And thats sorta my point with Watchmen....why would the comic book adapation that has been "To close to the comic" going to die in obscurity while the comic won't.

Lord Seth
2009-05-30, 02:33 AM
Yes.....yes I am....they were awful. The whole trilogy is.How? The third movie had lots of problems, and the first could've used a little work, but how was the second movie "awful"? That was one of the best movies released recently.


And thats sorta my point with Watchmen....why would the comic book adapation that has been "To close to the comic" going to die in obscurity while the comic won't.When has anyone complained about it being "too close to the comic"? I thought the majority of complaints were about changes. Actually, what you're writing is so confusingly worded I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 02:39 AM
Actually alot of reviews that were negative were about the movie being trangled by the comic and not breathing as its own movie. Its been one of the major driving complains about the film from the get go. A complaint I find to be 110% BS.


As for the spider man movies

1. Moved to slow, and by this I mean, it didn't,
2. The best of the three...but still poorly written with a cast that frankly acted like luke warm milk.
3. By a "little work" do you mean a complete ovrehaul? Sharing Venom with another villian was the first in a -very- long line complains. Such as the emo dancing Peter Parker, or the fact they had the Sandman in the movie. Yes yes I know he's an old school villian. Guess who dosn't care.

Lord Seth
2009-05-30, 02:51 AM
1. Moved to slow, and by this I mean, it didn't,Be a little more specific?


2. The best of the three...but still poorly written with a cast that frankly acted like luke warm milk.Again, you make generic, sweeping comments without backing them up at all. How was it poorly written? How did the cast "act like luke warm milk"?


3. By a "little work" do you mean a complete ovrehaul? Sharing Venom with another villian was the first in a -very- long line complains. Such as the emo dancing Peter Parker, or the fact they had the Sandman in the movie. Yes yes I know he's an old school villian. Guess who dosn't care.Did you even read my message? I said the FIRST movie needed a little work. Everything you just said applied to the third movie, which I flat-out said had lots of problems.

It's like if I were to say the Star Wars prequels were bad but the original trilogy was good, and then you proceed to "refute" me by listing problems from the prequels.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 03:05 AM
See thats the problem, you've offered no reasons why they are in fact good...so there is little reason for me to say anything other in response other then, no, and expounding a little on it. And sorry, I did misread the number order.

raitalin
2009-05-30, 03:25 AM
The first 2 Spidermen were pure, simple movies with tight story lines and a competent cast. I think they're be classic because the conflicts and character interactions will hold true over a number of years. What they eliminate from the books is done for the sake of simplicity, and doesn't detract from the story.

While I agree that Dunst is mediocre, I thought McGuire was brilliant as Peter Parker, though he lacked the comic timing I imagine in Spiderman. The villains in both were near-perfect, even if the Goblin's costume sucked.

I *really* don't understand your problem with the pacing of either movie, except that maybe 2 has a little too much resolution after its climax. I never once checked the time during either movie, what I take as a sign of a well-paced movie.

Watchmen OTOH, has a convoluted story line and doesn't develop the central line of the book: What makes people dress up like idiots and risk their lives? It sacrifices character development, what was really special about the series, to fit in every fit scene from said series and still manages to be slow in the middle. Watchmen will be a cult classic, no doubt, but was only a box office hit because of the money spent on the advertising blitz.

Boo
2009-05-30, 03:52 AM
BTW, anyone starting to feel old?

I'm feeling like I'm in my late twenties reading this thread... I'm 17, almost 18.

And I think everything people are listing, from before '99, are already classics. Why list them again?

I mean, sure, some movies will be seen in a better light as others in the past (A Clockwork Orange, anyone?), but that seems unlikely with anything before 2000 since our society has moved faster since then. LotR will be a classic, and so will Spiderman, The Watchmen, Ironman, and all those other comic book movies. Why? Because they're COMIC BOOK MOVIES! Well, except LotR, but that is based on one of the most famous fantasy novels in history, next to Twilight of course. :smalltongue:

In response to everyone talking about how a movie can't become a classic if the sequels suck: I bring you... Conan.

Pitch Black, and the Chronicles of Riddick will also become a classic (PB already is). Mad Money will probably become a classic for women, but not in the YaYa Sisterhood sort of way. A better way. Then there's also Oceans 11-13, The Matrix (first one mainly), Night At The Museum (not so much the second one), and others that don't come to mind at this exact moment.

Everything made by Pixar and Dreamworks will become a classic. Same goes for Tim Burton, and anything staring Johnny Depp for the same reasoning.

I'd love for Perfume: A Story of a Murderer to become a classic, but I don't think it will until I'm 30ish at least. It'll be a hidden treasure until then. So will many other films. I'd like to put Mirror Mask up there too, but I don't know if it would even go as high as a hidden treasure (although I liked it quite a bit).

Now, to everyone planning to respond negatively: This isn't based on personal preference. This is based on the Theory of Popularity and Depp. I hope that's not the name of a trope...

Satyr
2009-05-30, 04:25 AM
I don't think that too many movies who were specifically made for a broad audience these days would be "classics" by critical acclaim. To achieve the intended popular impact, the movies have to be dumbed down for a broader audience, marginalizing their quality for the sake of box success.

There are only a handful movies ever who are able to walk the line between actual quality and popularity.

Movies I can think of as modern classics, are:

The first Matrix movie (not because of the shallow pseudo-philosophy, but because of the cinematographic impact). What speaks agaisnt it are the abyssmal
Requiem for a Dream (again, cinematography, and one of the best soundtracks ever)
The Usual Suspects (because it is the prime example of an unreliable narrator stance in newer movies)
Memento (for a similar reason as the Usual Suspects.
Most Lars von Trier movies - but definitely Breaking the Waves and Dogville (I personally don't like von Trier much, but he makes innovative movies. Innovative movies that hurt, but innovative nonetheless).
At least a few of David Lynch's movies, especially Lost Highway, Mullholland Drive and Inland Empire. Lynch is perhaps the last truly avantgarde director in Hollywood.
Se7en (that movie coined a very own aesthetics and picture language which was copied very often.)



And I honestly don't think that any superhero movie ever would qualify for this category. For this, the movies are not intellectually stimulating and interesting enough. Too formulaic, and too shallow in their core proposition.
Frankly, if you cannot discuss about the true meaning of a movie on more than one level, it isn't interesting enough for a longer time.

Boo
2009-05-30, 04:35 AM
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree with you. You don't have to be able to discuss inner meanings of movies for them to become classics. If they are enjoyable, and good enough in the eyes of society (not just one person) then they are listed as classics. Of course, I'm going by media, not intellectual integrity. Some of the ones you've listed will become hidden treasures, while others will find a place amongst the stars.

...that line feels so cliche I almost slapped myself saying it out loud.

@V: I agree with you there... mostly.

Satyr
2009-05-30, 04:48 AM
It's cetainly not the intellectual property exclusively, sometimes the cinematography of the Aesthetics are as important. But honestly, the important opinion on the quality of movies (and any other cultural) is not the public, but the academic acclaim, and that requires a certain standard of intellectual stimulus.

The Rose Dragon
2009-05-30, 06:27 AM
What about movies that will become cult classics? Such as Pi? City of God?

Some movies challenge your perception and those become classics. Some challenge it too much. Those become cult classics.

There is one Turkish movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408017/) that would have became a classic if it came out a decade earlier and was filmed and released by another nation. It has great acting, a great story and great directing and cinematography, but it is a Turkish movie and no one will ever watch it.

Also, the word "classics". (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/classics)

Ichneumon
2009-05-30, 07:03 AM
I would be the first to say that Watchmen deserves a place in the list of books that were "special" and are classic, the movie however not so much. It was a good movie and I liked it as one of the best adaptations of a book I've ever seen, but I don't think it was that special as a movie.

The Dark Knight could be seen as the peak of the new superhero genre movies and I could see it turn into a classic, maybe more so than for example the spider-man movies (not that they weren't great, but they maybe were to fan-specific).

Jahkaivah
2009-05-30, 09:28 AM
Hrm...isn't Citizen Kane considered to be a classic? And wasn't it extremely unpopular around the time it was released?

I get the feeling that a lot of future "classics" will be of obscure, cult-status movies (or even ones regarded as being terrible today but awesome later).

Some films yes, then you have films like Stars Wars.



And thats sorta my point with Watchmen....why would the comic book adapation that has been "To close to the comic" going to die in obscurity while the comic won't.

There's alot of classic literature with faithful adaptions, but the adaptions fall into obscurity because they weren't as popular as the source material.


Are you joking?

No, seriously. Are you?


To be honest, I found the Spider-man films to be incredibly cheesy. And not in the "So Bad It's Good" sense.


I don't think Dark Knight will be a classic. The '89 film Batman recieved the same sort of praise and acclaim as the Dark Knight and it isn't considered a classic.

The '89 Batman and the first Spiderman never resulted in a major actors death. Nor had such (regrettable) mematic mutation* surrounding any of it's characters.

*This being very important, memes may come and go, but neither they nor the source gets forgotten, I can't think of a single classic which doesn't have some form of meme.

Agroking
2009-05-30, 09:35 AM
Ed Wood is, what, '96? and it is already a classic to me.

Erts
2009-05-30, 09:40 AM
It's cetainly not the intellectual property exclusively, sometimes the cinematography of the Aesthetics are as important. But honestly, the important opinion on the quality of movies (and any other cultural) is not the public, but the academic acclaim, and that requires a certain standard of intellectual stimulus.

I'm sorry... but have you seen what the Dark Knight did to the public?

It was the first time in a long while the public thought about a philosophical choice in a movie.

And, it has more memetic mutation than most things on the internet (not Chuck Norris level, but still.)

And, while this may sound what everybody else is saying, but Heath Ledger was amazing in it.

V'icternus
2009-05-30, 09:57 AM
The '89 Batman and the first Spiderman never resulted in a major actors death. Nor had such (regrettable) mematic mutation* surrounding any of it's characters.

*This being very important, memes may come and go, but they tend to help the source be rememebered, I can't think of a single classic which doesn't have some form of meme.

Yeah, I think the "Why so Serious?" line, along with the movie being cursed, will ensure that it's remembered.


If a movie creates a meme, then it's gonna be remembered.



Now, personally, I think all of the Jurrasic Park's are classics already. But, that's just me. But the first is, no question. You can't have a T-Rex eat a lawyer on a toilet, yet keep the movie with a non-comedy vibe, without creating a classic.

Also, Dinosaurs!

In relation to Jaws, I'd say only film numero uno deserves to be called a classic.

I think the Star Wars prequels are classics too. I, personally, loved 'em, but a lot of people didn't. However, I think in the future, people will see them anyway. After all, they provide humour, backstory, and violence.
Also, Yoda awesomeness and brilliant writing.


Now, Watchmen...
Watchmen will never be a classic. My only experience with the genre is the movie, and it wont be a classic. All it had going for it in a mainstream audience is violence. And lots of it.
Also, the most violent character dies in a way that many of todays viewers don't understand. (People are getting dumber, trust me...)

And, while it pains me to say it, I think that High School Musical (possibly the whole series) will become "classics", if only because they've attacked the young people... the children. When these kids grow up, and they decide what's good, that's gonna be on their list.
Then Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers will take over the world, and Zac Efron will make bizzare dance moves all over the place, and 4kids will destroy YouTube, and...

Well, you know what I'm getting at.


Anyway, to sum up, we have to kill current Disney, go back in time, and bring back past Disney to put things right again.

Lord Seth
2009-05-30, 10:15 AM
See thats the problem, you've offered no reasons why they are in fact good...so there is little reason for me to say anything other in response other then, no, and expounding a little on it.Spider-Man 2 has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. You're the one clearly going against the grain here, so you're the one who should really be defending your argument.

You also didn't "expound" on it at all. "Bad writing" is extremely vague and not useful at all. "Poor pacing" is a more in-depth term, but again you don't say why the pacing is oh-so-horrible. Here, I'll mimic what you said:

"Citizen Kane was an awful movie. It had bad pacing, bad characters, and bad acting."

Now, of course, none of what I just said is true. (well, okay, I think the pacing of the movie could've been improved a little, but overall it was fine) But anyone can write down that something was bad (as you did), so to defend your point you should at least be able to explain why the things you complained about are bad. If something is awful, there should be no shortage of specific reasons as to why it's bad instead of exceedingly vague terms. Given that it's far easier to explain why a bad movie is bad than why a good movie is good, I'd say that you're the one who's supposed to have the upper hand here.

But, okay, I'll give a crack at giving it a good review, and hopefully the fact I just woke up recently won't hamper my writing ability. The first is that it has a great sense of narrative, and I should know, given that I had to write a report on the subject for a film class. A lot of time the film will set things up that pay off later, or gives apparently throwaway lines that have more meaning; e.g. in an early scene Octavius jokingly declares that Peter thinks he's "going to blow up the city." Speaking of him, the villain is a much more interesting character given that he's actually fairly sympathetic, and with a more interesting motive than "I want power!" or "I want to just cause suffering!" There were also some actually great comic relief moments that never went too far. It also has a nice theme of sacrifice going on in it. The movie also kept something that made the comics popular in the first place: The dual focus on both Peter Parker and Spider-Man and how they affect each other.

As far as I remember, also, everything contributes to the plot. I can't think of any characters that were tossed in without some important purpose to play.

I also didn't see any large plot holes, but then again I tend to be a bit weak at spotting those. Feel free to point me towards any!

On a more "societal" note, the first two movies played an influence in revitalizing the superhero genre, and are possibly responsible for getting Watchmen finally made! :)

So basically: Interesting characters, a good, tight-paced plot with good narrative techniques, pretty cool special effects, comic relief that never goes too far by overshadowing the plot, and decent enough acting (not anything on the scale of Heath Leder's Joker, but I never had problems with the acting)

Still, like I said: If a movie is so awful, you should be able to give specific examples as to why it's supposedly so bad. It's much easier to explain why something is bad than why something is bad than why it's good. As you're going up against the majority view here, you should be the one to defend your statements.

Satyr
2009-05-30, 11:59 AM
I'm sorry... but have you seen what the Dark Knight did to the public?

It was the first time in a long while the public thought about a philosophical choice in a movie.

And, it has more memetic mutation than most things on the internet (not Chuck Norris level, but still.)


The Dark Knight was mostly as succesful because Ledger died. That was a major boost in public awareness and was probably partially responsible for the movie's success. There is nothing like a personal tragedy of a handsome person to gain public interest.

And I would probably be a tad more impressed by the movie's "philosophy" if it wouldn't be so shallow and completely overdone. It's basically a repetition of the old homo hominin lupus est, and that's not only old news, it is also an exercise in stating the obvious (well without the artificial fake positive overtones). So Yeah.

And internet memes... 300 coined an internet meme.



Spider-Man 2 has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. You're the one clearly going against the grain here, so you're the one who should really be defending your argument.

Which is, as far as I understand it, a popular vote, and therefore only secondary for determing the movie's actual quality. I liked Spiderman 2 (and it was certainly the best of the three), but it was a movie targeted at a broad audience and therefore had to appeal to the lowest common denominator to a degree.

Erts
2009-05-30, 12:02 PM
And I would probably be a tad more impressed by the movie's "philosophy" if it wouldn't be so shallow and completely overdone. It's basically a repetition of the old homo hominin lupus est, and that's not only old news, it is also an exercise in stating the obvious (well without the artificial fake positive overtones). So Yeah.

Your forgetting most people's experience with philosophy. Which is none.

Most people will think it is deep, even if it is not.

Satyr
2009-05-30, 12:08 PM
Your forgetting most people's experience with philosophy. Which is none.

Most people will think it is deep, even if it is not.

My point exactly. Why bother with the opinion of people who actually have no idea what is all about?

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 12:18 PM
Spider-Man 2 has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. You're the one clearly going against the grain here, so you're the one who should really be defending your argument.

Popular opinion=/=Truth


Just because the majority of people think something's good dosn't mean it is. And honestly, it seems to be the case that the side that says its "Good" gets away with simple and vauge responses while those who have a legit dislike have to spend hours typing up a reason, so frankly, if you can't come up with a reason why it was -good- without saying "Well it was a fun movie" etc. then even my "vauge" reasons for disliking it are enough. But, to sate your obvious curiosity

The acting was awful in all three movies. The majority of actors were hardly belivable. Mary Jane was....ugh....how to put this into words....homely at most times and really didn't give off the girl next door feel. Not only that but her lines seemd blocky, uninteresting and shallow.

On to Peter, terrible acting pick for one. He hardly was a fast talking smar mouth, he was a whiney depresed man who pined over the love of his life who was practicaly throwing herself at him untill the second moive. Wayto go stud. By the time the third movie came around they dropped the act and just had him turn into his emo self before "seeing the light" and trying to get back on the path of good. Which is another problem altogather.

The Villians: Good picks untill the third movie, which they clearly had some form of brain surgery and....crapped something out. Doc Oc is classic, Green Goblin is a must, and even the actor picks were pretty good here. But then came the lines. Oh god, the script. What were they thin....they wern't thinking....not one bit. Doc Oc comes across less as a mad scientiest bent on what ever it is he was bent on and became a tragic figure, really being controled by his loss and rage. The Green Goblin was less of a raving lunatic and more a house grown terrorist after getting a little power. Them we come to Venom....whose actor pick was just as maddening and random as pairing him with SANDMAN. Not only that, but totally changing Sandmas history....you might as well not have had him in it. Shame on the director....shame on the script writer and most of all shame on the people who thought this was a clever idea and who didn't think Venom could stand up alone with his own movie.



Pacing: The first movie dragged on and on and on and on. The action was shakey and for the most part unintersting, the dialouge was...trite and there was little to push the scene to the next without it being forced to move like most of the people who went to see it opening night after a buy one get one free night at the local waffle house. The second movie moved slightly faster, but by the middle I was wondering more how I was keeping awake. The third movie moved quickly, and that was its problem. Going from the first two plodding, near immoveable beasts the first two movies were, we get a fast forward to fail in the third movie, going from scene to scene like a hummingbird whose found speed in his necter. It brushs through Eddy Brock, making him more a side villian(see above). We'd like to know the villians motivations outside of the shallow cliche we were bombarded with at the start of the movie, but sadly we're at the credits wondering why we just spent 10 bucks for all this crap

Erts
2009-05-30, 12:25 PM
My point exactly. Why bother with the opinion of people who actually have no idea what is all about?


Because they are the general public. They determine what classics are.

A classic movie is, for example, the Godfather.
Several people, and a few of them are probably movie critics, hate the Godfather. They know what they are talking about.

But most people, when asked, say "The Godfather! Thats an amazing movie!"

The public are the only ones who do matter when something is popular opinion.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 12:32 PM
Because they are the general public. They determine what classics are.

A classic movie is, for example, the Godfather.
Several people, and a few of them are probably movie critics, hate the Godfather. They know what they are talking about.

But most people, when asked, say "The Godfather! Thats an amazing movie!"

The public are the only ones who do matter when something is popular opinion.

Sadly this is the case...though in the end, its the majority of the public that will be watching the movies, so it all works out

The Rose Dragon
2009-05-30, 12:33 PM
And several movie critics love the Godfather (mostly II).

Any objective method of rating a movie is unknown by 99% of the people that didn't study cinematography in college. And objective reviews are only one of the determinants of a classic.

Funny fact: most film critics (at least in Turkey) did not study cinematography in college. Their reviews are often as subjective as your opinion and simply have a more chance of being educated since they watch and analyze a lot of movies.

Satyr
2009-05-30, 12:47 PM
Because they are the general public. They determine what classics are.

No, they don't. As with pretty much every cultural good, the opinion of a single university professor outweighs thousands of laymen. What counts in the end, is the academic estimation, not the popularity.

raitalin
2009-05-30, 01:00 PM
No, they don't. As with pretty much every cultural good, the opinion of a single university professor outweighs thousands of laymen. What counts in the end, is the academic estimation, not the popularity.

Sure, if you're talking about classics that go largely unwatched like Citizen Kane, as opposed to stuff everyone's seen, like The Wizard of Oz.

Erothayce
2009-05-30, 01:10 PM
I think it has to be split. Classics for the thinking audience, professors, and educated cinematographers and classics for the masses because I'm fairly certain that the lists will come out different.
Ex. Thinking audience: Citizen kane
Mass public: Spider-man

Erts
2009-05-30, 01:11 PM
Thats is the sad and scary fact why V'icternus is right.

HSM will be remebered as classics.

That is the scariest thing I have seen in a long, long time.

Maybe it will be remebered as a fad? As in, "HSM, ugh I can't believe I liked that. It was just disney exploiting my tween guilibility."

Lord Seth
2009-05-30, 01:26 PM
Popular opinion=/=TruthThat site goes by critics' scores. Now granted, critics aren't infallible either, but it's not necessarily "popular opinion".


Just because the majority of people think something's good dosn't mean it is. And honestly, it seems to be the case that the side that says its "Good" gets away with simple and vauge responses while those who have a legit dislike have to spend hours typing up a reason, so frankly, if you can't come up with a reason why it was -good- without saying "Well it was a fun movie" etc. then even my "vauge" reasons for disliking it are enough. But, to sate your obvious curiosityI did try to go a bit more in-depth than you did. I merely noted that it's harder to explain why a movie is good than why a movie is bad.

The thing is, if something has a lot of plot holes, you can just point out the plot holes. You get a lot of ammunition that way. For something good, you can't say more than "well, I didn't see any plot holes."

To take some non-movie examples, it's also a lot easier to explain why a game's level design is bad than why one is good. I don't know how I can say that Super Mario Brothers had great level design other than "it made the game fun", but it's far easier to point out level design FLAWS in poorly-made games. For an example on my part, I can talk for a bit as to why I thought season two of Avatar was awesome, but I can talk for far longer and go into more depth as to why season three was a disappointment just because there's more specific things to talk about.

If you want to see why people thought it was good, incidentally, just go over to any of the positive reviews and read them.


On to Peter, terrible acting pick for one. He hardly was a fast talking smar mouth, he was a whiney depresed man who pined over the love of his life who was practicaly throwing herself at him untill the second moive. Wayto go stud. By the time the third movie came around they dropped the act and just had him turn into his emo self before "seeing the light" and trying to get back on the path of good. Which is another problem altogather. I'm confused here. Why, exactly, should he have been a "fast talking smart mouth"? Your argument seems to be "well Peter in the movie wasn't what he wasn't supposed to be, so that's bad."


But then came the lines. Oh god, the script. What were they thin....they wern't thinking....not one bit. Doc Oc comes across less as a mad scientiest bent on what ever it is he was bent on and became a tragic figure, really being controled by his loss and rage.For someone who keeps complaining about the writing, I'm noting your own writing is fairly confusing as well. What is your complaint here? That he was a tragic figure? Wasn't that what he was supposed to be in the movie? Wasn't that what made him interesting? Unless your complaint is "well, he didn't line up with what he was like in the original comics" which seems to me to be a rather absurd complaint.

And here's my problem again. You say "But then came the lines." Can you give me a few specific lines?


The Green Goblin was less of a raving lunatic and more a house grown terrorist after getting a little power.Actually I think he came across as a combination of both, but again I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing.


Them we come to Venom....whose actor pick was just as maddening and random as pairing him with SANDMAN. Not only that, but totally changing Sandmas history....you might as well not have had him in it. Shame on the director....shame on the script writer and most of all shame on the people who thought this was a clever idea and who didn't think Venom could stand up alone with his own movie.Here you are again, providing arguments against a film I acknowledged as weak. I don't care why you think the third movie was weak because I did also. I wanted to know why you thought the first two movies--especially the second movie--were oh-so-horrible.


The second movie moved slightly faster, but by the middle I was wondering more how I was keeping awake.I hate to sound like a broken record, but...how? I don't recall any scenes that were particularly unimportant, I don't recall things being stretched out too long. I suppose pacing is a rather subjective quality but I watched the thing at least three times (like I said, I had to write a report on its narrative structure) and I never found it to be crawling.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 01:56 PM
For someone who keeps complaining about the writing, I'm noting your own writing is fairly confusing as well. What is your complaint here? That he was a tragic figure? Wasn't that what he was supposed to be in the movie? Wasn't that what made him interesting? Unless your complaint is "well, he didn't line up with what he was like in the original comics" which seems to me to be a rather absurd complaint.

Why is this an absurd complaint? Isn't it a comic book movie? Don't we want them to be like our comic books....you know...the ones we remember reading as kids and dreamed we'd see them on the big screen one day? I think so...so I really don't see how this is an "absurd" complaint

SmartAlec
2009-05-30, 02:05 PM
Prediction: The Bourne trilogy will be considered the 'classic chase thrillers' of the late 20th/early 21st century.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-30, 02:08 PM
Prediction: The Bourne trilogy will be considered the 'classic chase thrillers' of the late 20th/early 21st century.

Really? Not Ronin?

Ichneumon
2009-05-30, 02:12 PM
What about Jurassic Park?

Lord Seth
2009-05-30, 02:22 PM
Why is this an absurd complaint? Isn't it a comic book movie? Don't we want them to be like our comic books....you know...the ones we remember reading as kids and dreamed we'd see them on the big screen one day? I think so...so I really don't see how this is an "absurd" complaintHe had the same powers as in the comics, he was also a scientist...he had different motivations and personality, but that's what made him a far more interesting character. Weren't you the one who complained about the "cliché motivations" in the third film?

And I think they DID make him into a mad scientist, they just balanced it with more complicated and interesting motivations and personality.

I mean, The Dark Knight had a different rendition of the Joker than most people are probably familiar with. The Joker is of course always pretty insane, but he usually balances it out with the fact his motivation is simple greed (or revenge against Batman, or both). The movie dropped the greed part and just made him and out-and-out insane character whose motivation was just simple destruction. That worked well for the movie, it made him a dynamic character.

Batman and Spider-Man aren't like Watchmen, where there's a story with a specific beginning and a specific ending and changes are often more hindering to the story. These are comics that have been going on for decades. If you're going to try to make them into a movie (which has a specific beginning and a specific ending), some things are going to have to change.

Okay, I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the Spider-Man comics, I was always more of a Batman guy myself. But from what I understand of the original Dr. Octopus, he was, as you said, a mad scientist. So was he in this movie, they just added some motivations and personality to him that made him a more interesting character and let the movie pull off the dual protagonist story much better than a simple mad scientist would've.

The Rose Dragon
2009-05-30, 02:25 PM
Why is this an absurd complaint? Isn't it a comic book movie? Don't we want them to be like our comic books....you know...the ones we remember reading as kids and dreamed we'd see them on the big screen one day? I think so...so I really don't see how this is an "absurd" complaint

If I wanted a comic book story word-by-word, motive-by-motive, I could just buy a comic book. I go to the movies to see something new. So, yes, it can be an absurd complaint depending on your point of view.

Egiam
2009-05-30, 04:13 PM
Prediction: The Bourne trilogy will be considered the 'classic chase thrillers' of the late 20th/early 21st century.


Probably Bond too.

-Saving Private Ryan

-Shakespeare in Love

-Harry Potter (s)

-Slumdog Millionaire?

Erts
2009-05-30, 04:17 PM
Meh.

Bad Bond movies are still classics. James Bond the entire series is a classic.

There always will be James Bond movies, so who knows?

Jahkaivah
2009-05-30, 04:22 PM
And internet memes... 300 coined an internet meme.


And will probably wind up being a classic, hey classics don't have to be intellectual, films like Ghost busters and Back to the Future are classics and they teach you even less.

rubakhin
2009-05-31, 11:08 PM
How old are you and how old do you feel?

Twenty; seventy-four. (Admittedly I've been feeling seventy-four since I was eight. It's been a long twenty years, brother.)

@TheRoseDragon: Hey, would you mind recommending some more Turkish films? I've seen only Don't Let Them Shoot the Kite. I thought it was beautiful, but aside from that I haven't watched anything else from Turkish cinema.

Tyrant
2009-06-01, 12:49 AM
Maybe some common understanding of what classic means would help here. Are we talking Citizen Cane classic, or Kelly's Heroes classic? I think it'll have a big impact on everyone's answers.

As for Watchmen, I can see cult classic status for it. Maybe something a level above that down the road. It is lacking character for some of the characters and is not perfect. However, if we're considering the Dark Knight for it's "deep thoughts", you almost have to include Watchmen for it's taking pragmatism to a considerable extreme and then forcing the characters to decide how to deal with the fact the "villain" just won and they were powerless to stop it. Not even mentioning the debate as to whether or not Ozymandias is actually a villain. The best comparison may be to Blade Runner. Don't misunderstand, I am not comparing them on a quality level or even on the level of thought one or the other may lead to. What I am comparing is that Blade Runner (to my knowledge) wasn't well received initially. Over time it has built a following and (so near as I can tell) is better received today and more widely aknowledged. Watchmen may take a while to catch on (or it might not) once people get past the fact it isn't a generic superhero movie like the majority that are out there.

Beyond that, I agree with LotR. Maybe the Star Wars prequels though mostly due to RotS and their connection with the OT. The Matrix might make it (sequels are iffy though). I could see PotC going either way. Jack Sparrow makes all the difference with that choice.

I think No Country for Old Men has a shot (about anything the Coens make has a shot). Gran Torino has a decent shot, though like the Coens, Eastwood has a decent shot most of the time of winding up in the classic list (with a few exceptions, obviously). If it weren't 16 years ago (I'm feeling old too now) I would put Tombstone on this list.

I'm reluctant to take any guesses on the comedy front because, to me at least, comedies don't seem to stand the test of time very well unless they are near perfect. Caddyshack, Blazing Saddles, Airplane, etc are movies that are still funny somehow. I just don't many movies made like that anymore. The only ones I can see lasting are parodies. I could see Galaxy Quest lasting because it is the pinnacle of sci fi (though primarily Star Trek) parody much like Airplane is the peak of disaster movie parody. Shaun of the Dead is another that may make it. Zombies have come and gone (and now, come back) in popularity so the test will be if the humor can stand on its own or if it needs zombies being popular to make it work better. I think it's hilarious myself, but obviously by it's nature a lot of the jokes are related to other zombie movies. The only other comedy I can see making it to classic level is Anchorman and that may only be because I have never laughed so hard as I did at the back alley brawl in that movie (and the rest was hilarious as well). As I said though, how comedy ages can be hard to predict (though it's a pretty safe bet the ____ Movie series of movies will not be remembered for anything beyond how awful they are).

bosssmiley
2009-06-01, 04:08 AM
Doomsday: Escape from New York + Mad Max + Scotland + Malcolm McDowell + half the cast of Dog Soldiers = WIN!
Dog Soldiers: "I hope I give you the s**ts!" :smallcool:
Maybe The Matrix (although I think Bill & Ted will outlast it...)

(watch the margins, that's where the good stuff happens :smallwink: )

pondshadow
2009-06-01, 05:48 AM
One that has not been mentioned is There Will be Blood. I think that's defineitly a classic

Edit: Oh, and then there's The Visitor, which could get in because of it's excellence of portraying the immigrant in the US

Brewdude
2009-06-01, 10:37 AM
Why does he think the Spiderman series sucked? Because it didn't fit his internal image of what the spiderman comics should have looked like on film.

This is the oldest reason to not like a film in history: "the book was better." There's no talking to people who hold this view. Eventually they either figure out that movies are a different media than print or they don't.

Headless_Ninja
2009-06-06, 09:42 AM
I'm hoping that Pan's Labyrinth will be a classic. And I have to agree with The Usual Suspects (but isn't it already one?).
Possible cult classics include Donnie Darko and (unlikely, but I really hope) Brick. And then there are the 'classics' that will be remembered if only because we make sure they are. For example, should I ever have kids, they are going to know Serenity (and of course Firefly, but not a film) inside-out!

GoC
2009-06-06, 10:14 AM
At least some Pizar stuff will be classic. Titanic. Jurasic Park. Any movie that was "deep" or started a trend.

btw: I thought all three spiderman movies were meh. Primarily because the guy who played spiderman had his face continuosly fixed as a smile.:smallyuk:
And I've never read the comics.

Darken Rahl
2009-06-06, 11:07 AM
I think the discussion of classic vs. not classic is made somewhat moot by the delivery systems we currently have. In the past, movies were seen in the theatre, then never again, except infrequently on television or again in the theatre. When one is forced to rely on memories, things get weighted differently. When we can rent, own, and watch any movie at any time regardless of its quality or success, the definition of a "classic" is somewhat (I would argue very much so) diluted.

Also, I believe that cable broadcast should be taken into account. Many movies destined to be forgotten are saved by cable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VindicatedByCable) which doesn't justify them as classics (as defined by quality), merely as money makers for the networks.


For good or for bad, I think that the label of "Classic" is one assigned by the film industry, not the viewers, and we are simply better equipped these days to make our own decisions outside of the label given to any film.

JellyPooga
2009-06-06, 01:23 PM
I'm going to second Dog Soldiers for cult-classic status (it's too...culty for true classic, I think)...amazing film that just works for the fact that it's kind of believable despite the supernatural theme...I swear the actors must have gone and spent several weeks on maneuvers with some British squaddies 'cos that's exactly what they're like! The only thing that would improve that film is if they had a different actress...urgh, she's terrible!

Doomsday was a little dissapointing IMO though...it just didn't gel together well enough to reach that state of film-nirvana that constitutes a classic (cult or otherwise).

derfos
2009-06-06, 01:50 PM
I'm surprised everyone went crazy for Watchmen but nobody mentioned Sin City, which is one of the best movies of this decade.

BROCK22
2009-06-08, 03:34 PM
the watchman? haha no.
i dont particularly like this movie but probably the Matrix. Also for kids I would say any of the Pixar films.

o and i can totally see Slum Dog Millionaire becoming a classic...i didnt particularly love that either but it made so much money/ got so much press.

Yarram
2009-06-10, 05:04 AM
I'd go with the Matrix as a definite. I'm sure Serenity, V for Vendetta and the Dark Knight will go on also.

John Myers
2009-06-14, 11:09 PM
I think Watchmen has real legs as cult classic. The same way Bladerunner was dismissed because it was genre film doing lots of complex things beneath the surface that people didn't weren't really looking for the first time.

Watchmen has a lot going on in terms of deconstructing a lot of moral assumptions and popular political ideology.

Joran
2009-06-15, 11:30 AM
I think Watchmen has real legs as cult classic. The same way Bladerunner was dismissed because it was genre film doing lots of complex things beneath the surface that people didn't weren't really looking for the first time.

Watchmen has a lot going on in terms of deconstructing a lot of moral assumptions and popular political ideology.

But that's more the graphic novel than the movie. The graphic novel is already considered a classic. The movie? I doubt it.

Lupy
2009-06-15, 01:56 PM
And internet memes... 300 coined an internet meme.

Meme? Meme? This! Is! The Internet!!!

Don't hurt me.

Satyr
2009-06-16, 11:44 AM
Yes, but the creating of memes is question of popularity or at least publicity, not actually quality. These two are often quite unrelated categories, and more often than not the basic conection is that it is much more likely that a cultural product is not popular because of its quality, bit because of its actualy lack of it. 300 is a prime example for this.

toasty
2009-06-16, 10:35 PM
If LotR does not become a classic movie then I will probably go insane. It was amazing. First book-to-movie adaptation that I actually thought was just as good as the book (besides the elves coming to Helm's Deep, that is :smallwink:)

Other than that... maybe Dark Knight, maybe the 1st POTC.

Probably a Pixar Movie like Toy Story or Finding Nemo.

John Myers
2009-06-22, 01:03 AM
" Originally Posted by John Myers View Post
I think Watchmen has real legs as cult classic. The same way Bladerunner was dismissed because it was genre film doing lots of complex things beneath the surface that people didn't weren't really looking for the first time.

Watchmen has a lot going on in terms of deconstructing a lot of moral assumptions and popular political ideology.

But that's more the graphic novel than the movie. The graphic novel is already considered a classic. The movie? I doubt it."

I disagree, the movie may not be as complex as the book, but I think there's still a lot there. Rorschach is still a nasty look at vigilantism, The Comedian is still a critical look at Cold War era foreign policy, etc.

There's a generation of kids dying for something like that to toss around in their dorm rooms and a midnight movie showings.

Avilan the Grey
2009-06-22, 01:31 AM
I disagree, the movie may not be as complex as the book, but I think there's still a lot there. Rorschach is still a nasty look at vigilantism, The Comedian is still a critical look at Cold War era foreign policy, etc.

There's a generation of kids dying for something like that to toss around in their dorm rooms and a midnight movie showings.

...No, I do not think so. I can't see Watchmen as anything but a failed comic-book movie (better than X-men 3 but not as good as Spiderman 3) (admittedly I am also one of those who finds the original comic highly overrated and pretentious).


I have a hard time finding any classics; maybe the LOTR trilogy, maybe Ironman, maybe Pirates (the first one; just like everyone I know only means the first movie when talking about Matrix).
And of course every Pixar production ever made.

GoC
2009-06-22, 07:19 AM
Ironman
:smallconfused:
A typical action flick. Why would it persist?

Fin
2009-06-22, 07:28 AM
I gotta say 'The Usual Suspects' Keyser Soze has become an idea in his own right and as such it gets classic status in my book.

Also, 'The Hangover' saw it the other day and it's definitely on ethe funniest films about!

Telonius
2009-06-22, 08:40 AM
Movies in the last 15 years that will probably be considered classics. (Not necessarily the ones I think should be considered classics, but the ones that probably will).

Forrest Gump (1994)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)
Clerks (1994)
The Bridges of Madison County (1995)
Braveheart (1995)
Mallrats (1995)
The Birdcage (1996)
Trainspotting (1996)
Fargo (1996)
The English Patient (1996)
Titanic (1997)
Chasing Amy (1997)
Boogie Nights (1997)
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Rounders (1998)
Pleasantville (1998)
Waking Ned Devine (1998)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Truman Show (1998)
American Beauty (1999)
The Matrix (1999)
Fight Club (1999)
Run Lola Run (1999)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
U-571 (2000)
O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000)
Gladiator (2000)
Cast Away (2000)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Gosford Park (2001)
Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)
Spirited Away (2002)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)
Cold Mountain (2003)
Bend it Like Beckham (2003)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
The Incredibles (2004)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Walk the Line (2005)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
V for Vendetta (2006)
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

After that, other than The Dark Knight (2008), it's really too soon to tell.

Series: Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter

Basically, if it contains any one of the following, it's more likely to be a classic; two or more, it's assured; three or more, you're trying too hard. Nazis; Tom Hanks; Kevin Smith; Quentin Tarantino; Leonardo DiCaprio; a cast that's 50%+ British, Australian, or Kiwi. That formula means "Catch Me If You Can" and "Saving Private Ryan" are automatic classics. But if Kevin Smith were to make a movie about Nazis with a primarily British cast, it wouldn't work.

Avilan the Grey
2009-06-22, 08:47 AM
:smallconfused:
A typical action flick. Why would it persist?

As a classic of it's genre. Like Die Hard (first one) or T2.

Mewtarthio
2009-06-22, 09:14 AM
I disagree, the movie may not be as complex as the book, but I think there's still a lot there. Rorschach is still a nasty look at vigilantism, The Comedian is still a critical look at Cold War era foreign policy, etc.

Here's the thing: The movie provides nothing new. Yes, it's completely faithful (aside from having Dan stand up at the end and say "BTW Ozzie is a bad person"), but quite frankly if I want a completely faithful look at Watchmen, I'll read Watchmen.

Heck, just look at the cultural impact of the novel vs the movie. The graphic novel spawned innumerable imitators and completely changed the face of the comics industry. The movie spawned a few bad jokes about the naked blue guy and a bunch of internet debates about how good the movie was.

Fin
2009-06-22, 10:34 AM
I think Talonius's list is a little too many but most of them sound about right. I hope Shaun of the Dead is never forgotten as I love that film, same with The Big Labowski. But I'm sure they are well known enough?

Dienekes
2009-06-22, 05:07 PM
As a classic of it's genre. Like Die Hard (first one) or T2.

Ahh how times change when Die Hard's gritty look and attempt at subverting the action genre and T2's question of what makes humanity become seen as simply genre classics and not classics in their own right.

Sorry boyo Ironman was good, but it was simply a good action movie that hit every note on the way without taking risk or provoking thought.

Was fun to watch though.

Erts
2009-06-22, 05:12 PM
:smallconfused:
A typical action flick. Why would it persist?

If the Avengers movie that eventually comes out is really good (and I mean REALLY good,) then the charecter might be remembered by the public more.

Telonius, nice job. Summed it up very nicely.

Generic Archer
2009-06-22, 06:38 PM
The thing about writing details as to why it's bad, is that if you've only seen it once, when it came out 7+ years ago is that it's really hard.

Personally the first spider man was meh... the guy was spineless and the 'love' subplot just didn't work with him.
The second I don't recall at all, if I even watched and the third? all I'll say is that not all the world is American and that patriotism on that level causes wars

There was only one matrix movie.

Other nominations, Lotr, V for Vendetta, the Matrix for sure, I'm going to go with Toy Story, it was kind of the first movie in that vein and it started a huge trend there

Raharu
2009-06-22, 08:22 PM
I think Pirates will be. As well as the new Batmans, Fight Club, Memento, the fisrt Matrix, The Usual Suspects and the Hannibal Lecter movies.

Well, now I'm getting into territory where they may already be classics. It's a continuum, really, so I guess by the time a movie is 10-15 years old it's already set down whether it's gonna be a classic or not. And you can probably tell much earlier than that.

Somebody mentioned Oldboy. I, too, would like to believe it'll get remembered. It's a good one.

Joran
2009-06-22, 09:57 PM
Hmm... Hayao Miyazaki will probably be considered one of the best directors of this era, although probably only a small subset of the public will know who he is. In that case, probably one of his films will be considered a classic.

Spirited Away as his signature piece? Maybe Princess Mononoke?

Erloas
2009-06-22, 11:16 PM
I don't think Watchmen will have what it takes to be a classic because it was only really liked by people that already knew the story. Sure there were some people that didn't like the adaption and some people that liked the movie that never read the comics, but it was very much a select subset of the population. And it wasn't that popular of a comic, at least in the mainstream. There are only a few comic books that really are well known out side of comic books, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Wolvorine (probably the only X-Men most people would know), Hulk, maybe a few others. Ones that ever your mother is going to know the characters even if they never even thought of picking up the comics. I bet you would be hard pressed to get a hold of 10 random people (ie not on a site like this)and get more then 1 that could name even a single character out of Watchmen.

Of course on a site like this things are going to look different because there is a strong comic book following, but thats not true of most people.
I think it has a very strong chance of being a cult classic, but of course a lot of things can be cult classics because there are a huge number of subcultures that will have their own likes and dislikes and create their own cult classics. And of course most comic book movies will probably end up in that same cult-classic category. Although some will make mainstream.

Movies like the new Star Trek, Batman, and various Bond, and newer Star Wars will probably not become classics on their own so much as joining their previous incarnations as part of a classic series, of which some movies are thought of as better then others but they don't generally get thought of on their own.

Jimor
2009-06-23, 12:34 AM
I'll go for a couple of dark horses, so to speak, since both are westerns.

Quigley Down Under, with Tom Selleck, Alan Rickman, and Laura San Giacomo. A western with more modern sensibilities, but still manages to deliver one of the best showdowns of all time in a believable manner.

Open Range, with Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner and Annette Bening. A very "quiet" movie that has a very realistic feel. There aren't larger than life heroes and villains, they're normal good folk standing up to typical bullies with guns. There's a shootout, but it's so chaotic and dirty that you practically have an epiphany on how really bad it would be to be in the middle of something like that.

Avilan the Grey
2009-06-23, 01:03 AM
Ahh how times change when Die Hard's gritty look and attempt at subverting the action genre and T2's question of what makes humanity become seen as simply genre classics and not classics in their own right.

Sorry boyo Ironman was good, but it was simply a good action movie that hit every note on the way without taking risk or provoking thought.

Was fun to watch though.

...And?
It is also the best Marvel-based superhero movie to date. And contains huge amounts of Awesome.

Thought-provoking? Not sure if I would qualify T2 as thought-provoking. It's more... Cyborg Smash. Maybe I am too nerdy, but to me it was never a thought-provoking thing because I took all those questions for granted. I guess I have played too many RPGs and watched too much Star Trek, but the fact that a "cyborg" (which he really wasn't, he was a 100% robot with removable flesh) could become so "human" is so self-evident that I didn't think of it.

Avilan the Grey
2009-06-23, 01:07 AM
I'll go for a couple of dark horses, so to speak, since both are westerns.

Quigley Down Under, with Tom Selleck, Alan Rickman, and Laura San Giacomo. A western with more modern sensibilities, but still manages to deliver one of the best showdowns of all time in a believable manner.

Is that the one where he is a "sniper"? Hired to do some dirty work and ends up sympathetic towards the Indigenous Australians?

Jimor
2009-06-23, 01:17 AM
Is that the one where he is a "sniper"? Hired to do some dirty work and ends up sympathetic towards the Indigenous Australians?

Yes. When he takes the job, he thinks he's supposed to hunt dingoes. Alan Rickman meant a slightly larger "pest". :smalleek:

I think this was also Alan Rickman's first followup to his breakthrough villain in Die Hard. Fans of his will definitely want to catch this one.

EDIT: Final Showdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eT33eT30Uc)

And Open Range gunfight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq3zjTmVLbM)

Obrysii
2009-06-23, 01:41 PM
Um, off the top of my head...

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Howl's Moving Castle

Spirited Away

WALL-E

...pretty much anything from Pixar, actually.

Haruki-kun
2009-06-23, 01:43 PM
Hmm... Hayao Miyazaki will probably be considered one of the best directors of this era, although probably only a small subset of the public will know who he is. In that case, probably one of his films will be considered a classic.

Spirited Away as his signature piece? Maybe Princess Mononoke?

Howl's Moving Castle is also a possibility. But I really think Spirited Away > All.