PDA

View Full Version : How Long Will Classic Geek Franchises be Relevant?



Eakin
2012-06-27, 04:28 PM
A question on geek culture

Most franchises are a flash in the pan, they burn brightly and then flare out just as fast. Maybe if they're really good they'll stick around in our collective memories for a decade or so. In ten years, will people on forums like this one reference stuff like Stargate, or Battlestar Galactica, or Death Note, or Friendship is Magic, or Avatar? If I were a betting man I would say no. Not that they aren't good, even great, just that people move on to new things and once a reference falls below a certain level of memetic permeation it will probably be referenced less and less often and from there it's in a death spiral.

HOWEVER! Some franchises and shows seem to have escaped this life cycle. Star Wars. Star Trek. Lord of the Rings. The Simpsons. These seem to be things that have stood the test of time.

Or have they? Have they attained some kind of pop-cultural immortality where people will still remember and appreciate them in 40 or 50 years? Or are they just on a slower cycle than some of the other properties I've listed above? Does it matter whether or not these franchises are putting out new material that keeps them fresh in the audience's mind?

On the phenomenally unlikely chance that anyone else around DC saw Mr Burns, A Post Electric Play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PZAgfptL7qQ#!) that's a big part of what made me start turning this over in my head.

Ravens_cry
2012-06-27, 04:59 PM
The Simpsons is a 'Geek franchise'?

Eakin
2012-06-27, 05:09 PM
The Simpsons is a 'Geek franchise'?

I would submit that a geek is going to be way, way more likely to quote or cite individual episodes than the average person. And I doubt you could find a geek who could name the six main characters from 'Friends' but couldn't name the main characters from 'The Simpsons'. I was admittedly going for cultural permeation, though. The franchise doesn't have to be ONLY appreciated by geeks. The performance of all of those franchises I listed at the box office suggests that their appeal extends beyond just the super geeky contingent.

Maybe that's part of the secret? Go wide rather than deep?

ChaosLord29
2012-06-27, 05:18 PM
It's a difficult question to answer, but I'll tell you, the lifespan of most creative works is a lot longer than we think it is. Even if you're not talking Shakespeare or Hemingway or Tolkien, cult followings of stories, books and other media generally last at least a century, if not as a work in their own right, than as part of a trend, or greater genre.

Generally it's impossible to say whether a work will stand the test of time in the same way as Chaucer or Homer, but a good indicator is the reception and attention it receives in institutions of higher learning. Are professors at universities incorporating it into their curriculum? Are classes being taught about it as a phenomenon of popular culture or literary trend? These are the unsung record keepers of our society, and what catches the interest of colleges and universities is usually what is able to spark debate or controversy not just in the classroom, but in the department and academic journals.

Selrahc
2012-06-27, 06:14 PM
Slightly schizophrenic question.

How long will a work be remembered? If it gets stored in archives, hopefully forever. People still read books from hundreds of years ago. People will probably rediscover a book or series lots of times, but that wouldn't really have much effect on culture.

How long will a work be a cultural touchstone? There are almost no cross generational things which you can reference in that way. Those few that are (for example Sherlock Holmes, Winnie the Pooh, Shakespeare) are bolstered by constant modern adaptations and reimaginings that keep them at the forefront of our cultural consciousness. I think you'd struggle to find a cross generational franchise which can muster up the same cachet as Simpsons or Star Trek without being kept relevant through modern uses of the setting.

Of course Simpsons/Star Trek level is pretty high levels of cultural saturation. You can find examples of works that have some level of cultural recognition even without much modern work on them, just not to the same general knowledge level of recognition. Everybody knows Homer Simpson or Sherlock Holmes. Comparatively fewer people would know say... Brer Rabbit.

ChaosLord29
2012-06-27, 06:56 PM
Many of the cultural icons of this day and age are also a relatively new form of media, centered as they are around film, television and other short-form mass media outlets. It's difficult to say how long they will stay "culturally relevant" because they've been culturally relevant just about as long as their form of cultural outlet has been around.

The only place we can really look for examples to draw on and compare them too are earlier mass media works like Charlie Chaplin, The Three Stooges, or I Love Lucy.

Hida Reju
2012-06-27, 09:44 PM
My usual answer to this is just an opinion but I think about 3 generations.

Usually by the time you are a grandparent things from your time are considered out of style. TV you watched is no longer prevalent even in reruns. Events in history are glossed over and often not remembered as much. Time moves on and leaves the past behind, only the darkest and brightest moments get remembered for longer than that.

Basically if it did not touch and change the whole country/world it is going to be forgotten eventually. Also the longer we go without something to refresh interest the worse it gets.

Lets give it 15-20 more years for Star Trek with no new series and eventually it will lose some following as less and less channels replay them.

ChaosLord29
2012-06-27, 09:54 PM
Lets give it 15-20 more years for Star Trek with no new series and eventually it will lose some following as less and less channels replay them.

Star Trek will probably be relevant a lot longer in that it is the archetype of science fiction television series. Star Wars because it did the same for film adaptations. I'm not saying they'll hold the same weight as Shakespeare through the ages, but just look at how well Tolkien has held up. He's the grandfather of fantasy literature in the same way that Lucas and Roddenberry are for science fiction, and while his work is only refreshed so often, it's hard for any swords and sorcery creative work to escape his shadow.

Telonius
2012-06-27, 10:05 PM
Some geek franchises have already gotten basically immortal. Superman, Batman, and (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent) Spider-Man are probably going to be remembered for at least a hundred years.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-06-27, 10:36 PM
Well first off we should probably divide certain works from their fandoms.

We already know that certain works become timeless and will be carried through the centuries in some fashion. Shakespeare, Chaucer, etc. One day I suspect you will be able to get a degree heavy in classic television or classic videogames with no more of a raised eyebrow then for studies in classic literature. It might even filter down to be being below college level. What exactly will be in that curriculum though who can say, but there will probably something we'd recognize.

Now then will the fandoms around some works (and only some) endure is a much more interesting question. Not even Star Trek at is an old enough to make that call and it invented a lot of 'fandom' itself. Maybe they are themselves self-sustaining memes that will transmit down generations even if not regularly 'fed' with fresh material. I'd like to think that this is possible, but as a sociological phenomena I'm not sure we even have enough cases much less sufficient time scale to examine the idea. There's perilously few cases. Anyone heard much about Browncoats lately? I sure haven't. How is Harry Potter doing now that even the movies are done? Ponies have already spawned their own conventions and the Herd grows everyday but Celestia only knows what will happen when one day the show is no more.

Man on Fire
2012-06-28, 05:39 PM
Some geek franchises have already gotten basically immortal. Superman, Batman, and (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent) Spider-Man are probably going to be remembered for at least a hundred years.

Once Civilisation will crumble to dust, on the scorched earth that will come after it remmants of humanity will read holy scriputers left by the anciets, foretelling the life and times of god of Red, Blue and Yellow, The Bat Of The Night And The Human Who Crawls Like A Spider. And the Hulk, be blessed he, for he is the strongest.

Jayngfet
2012-06-28, 09:31 PM
A question on geek culture

Most franchises are a flash in the pan, they burn brightly and then flare out just as fast. Maybe if they're really good they'll stick around in our collective memories for a decade or so. In ten years, will people on forums like this one reference stuff like Stargate, or Battlestar Galactica, or Death Note, or Friendship is Magic, or Avatar? If I were a betting man I would say no. Not that they aren't good, even great, just that people move on to new things and once a reference falls below a certain level of memetic permeation it will probably be referenced less and less often and from there it's in a death spiral.

HOWEVER! Some franchises and shows seem to have escaped this life cycle. Star Wars. Star Trek. Lord of the Rings. The Simpsons. These seem to be things that have stood the test of time.

Or have they? Have they attained some kind of pop-cultural immortality where people will still remember and appreciate them in 40 or 50 years? Or are they just on a slower cycle than some of the other properties I've listed above? Does it matter whether or not these franchises are putting out new material that keeps them fresh in the audience's mind?

On the phenomenally unlikely chance that anyone else around DC saw Mr Burns, A Post Electric Play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PZAgfptL7qQ#!) that's a big part of what made me start turning this over in my head.

It Depends very much on your definition of "relevant". I mean there are stories still collected and sold as they were over a century ago that sell reasonably well, but have never really hit the level of Star Wars. They probably inspired Star Wars, and their influence can often be seen to this day, but the progenitor story has fallen into relative obscurity.

Other times it really depends on if it's the same property you started with. I mean a few years ago there was very real talk of Lucas and Hamill and Ford and the rest getting together and making another movie or two, but that's obviously fallen by the wayside. Most Star Wars stuff produced recently doesn't even pretend to be about Luke Skywalker, or a lot of it even Anakin/Vader. Obviously everyone involved knows who they are but how many games starring Luke have there been in the last decade?

An Enemy Spy
2012-06-28, 11:19 PM
I think Halo has stayed pretty big for a decade now. While not quite the level of Star Wars, I think it will have a niche in sci-fi for years to come. I know I'm going to keep following it.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-06-29, 12:09 AM
I think Halo has stayed pretty big for a decade now. While not quite the level of Star Wars, I think it will have a niche in sci-fi for years to come. I know I'm going to keep following it.

Not to rain on your parade but... according to some very quick looking around combined value everything connected with Halo is 3 billion dollars which puts it a billion shy of Star Wars box office gross. To say nothing of the EU and merchandising.

And have by this point in its history Star Wars was so standard it got slapped onto well "Star Wars" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative) among countless other instances. Should I rattle off some tropes it named among other things

No a more modern Star Wars would be Harry Potter if its anything.

An Enemy Spy
2012-06-29, 12:40 AM
Not to rain on your parade but... according to some very quick looking around combined value everything connected with Halo is 3 billion dollars which puts it a billion shy of Star Wars box office gross. To say nothing of the EU and merchandising.

And have by this point in its history Star Wars was so standard it got slapped onto well "Star Wars" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative) among countless other instances. Should I rattle off some tropes it named among other things

No a more modern Star Wars would be Harry Potter if its anything.

What are you going on about? I said it wasn't on the level of Star Wars in popularity.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-06-29, 01:05 AM
What are you going on about? I said it wasn't on the level of Star Wars in popularity.

You said "not quite" which implies some level of parity.

For that matter aside from numbers I don't know that I get that self-sustaining air to Halo. Its popular to be sure but I don't know that I've encountered it as a social phenomena unto itself. Or at least I've never encountered it personally.

An Enemy Spy
2012-06-29, 01:15 AM
You said "not quite" which implies some level of parity.

For that matter aside from numbers I don't know that I get that self-sustaining air to Halo. Its popular to be sure but I don't know that I've encountered it as a social phenomena unto itself. Or at least I've never encountered it personally.

Thing is, you're comparing a video game frnchise to a film franchise, particualarly a game series that only exists on one console(okay, two, but Xbox and Xbox 360 basically count as the same). Of course Star Wars has made more money and is more popular. Virtually everyone has seen all six movies because they were released to a much more diverse audience than just people who play video games, and Xbox in particular.
Even still, Halo has redefined what is considered standard for it's genre much in the same way Star Wars and Star Trek have for mainstream science fiction.
Even if they don't know much about Halo, most people know of it. If they saw a picture of the Master Chief, they would be able to tell you that he's the guy from Halo. I don't think you could say the same with many other sci-fi franchises.

KillianHawkeye
2012-06-29, 08:45 AM
Even if they don't know much about Halo, most people know of it. If they saw a picture of the Master Chief, they would be able to tell you that he's the guy from Halo. I don't think you could say the same with many other sci-fi franchises.

I'm going to have to challenge this statement. My 55-year-old mother knows all the main characters in Star Wars (not just the originals, but the prequels as well), but she doesn't know the first thing about Halo. She couldn't tell the difference between Master Chief and any other guy in heavily concealing space armor. Halo may be well known amongst gamers, but it hasn't reached into the wider world at all.

I could easily add just about everybody I know who's over 40 to the list of people who don't know a thing about Halo.

Fragenstein
2012-06-29, 08:57 AM
Ponies will live forever. Friendship is Magic has achieved immortality. It's FiMmortal.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-29, 09:03 AM
I saw a trailer for the latest Halo game last time I went to the theater. It was immediately recognized by my GF, who had never played any of them.

Star Wars is on the downward slope. The main stuff has all been made. Halo is much earlier in it's life cycle. Comparing the two head to head is not quite fair.

Avilan the Grey
2012-06-29, 12:30 PM
First of all Simpsons is NOT a geek franchise. Futurama is, but not Simpsons. There is a reason why Simpsons have gone on for 22(?) years while Futurama has already been cancelled once.

Now, classical geek francises? Do those that started before geek existed count (Star Trek, Dr Who etc) or where the geeks are only a small part of the original demographic (Transformers, Star Wars etc)? Because the pure "geek franchises", like Firefly, Sara Connor Chronicles etc never lasts.

Keld Denar
2012-06-29, 10:03 PM
What is it...the amount of data generated doubles every what, 7 years at current pace? A human being only has the ability to consume so much data at a time. The forefathers are titans, not so much in that their heads were so much higher, but because there were fewer heads to look over. The amount of new media produced each minute is more than than an entire year when the Lord of the Rings was published.

There is a lot more content to compete with. New things are coming at us faster than we can consume. We have less and less time to consume more and more product. That alone will contribute to weakening of not only existing paragons of genre, but of all up and coming content with the intent to steal their thrones. TV shows, movies, and books don't have the time to instill themselves as cult classics, and even cult classics will be swept down the river of time by the flood of new media.

If you have geeky parents, ask them how many times they read through Lord of the Rings? I doubt you'll get an answer less than 6. Now ask an 18 year old geeky type how many times they've read it? Probably once, less likely to be more than 2. Even things that are easy to consume, such as visual media, people simply have too much to keep up with. My mother used to watch reruns of Star Trek (both generations) all the time. I barely find time to keep up with the few shows I enjoy such as Big Bang Theory and Game of Thrones, and watch most of them in an on-demand format such as via the Internet. I know there are a lot of other great shows that I'd like to watch...I'm just NOW catching up on Firefly, but I just don't have time with all of the other media I'd like to consume.

I'd wager there will never be another Star Wars, not quite the way it was when it first emerged. There was nothing like it at the time. Now there are hundreds of movies, tv shows, video games, comic books, and the like that are a hundred times better than Star Wars but will make a much lower impact on society than Star Wars simply by being drowned out in the sea of similar content.

tensai_oni
2012-06-29, 10:11 PM
I disagree. While it is true that amount of media produced increases in time, this is because population is growing so there is more people writing things. Also, with the Internet's growing popularity, more and more people write fanfiction, make internet videos and similar content that is available for all and would be limited to the insides of their own heads or notebooks in past years.

But if we put aside these fan-level works, as opposed to professional ones, we will find the increase to be not so large. It's not that Tolkien, Wilde or Shakespeare had less rivals and we are drowning in a sea of worthwhile media now. There was a lot of media back then as well, but most of it was mediocre and did not survive the test of time. Just as most of what we have now will be forgotten in 20+ years.

Finn Solomon
2012-07-01, 01:05 PM
Long as we live, I expect. I know that when I'm a grumpy old coot in my hundreds, I'll still be boring my great grandkids with the Legend of the Firefly and the Evil of Fox.

Vorr
2012-07-01, 08:30 PM
This is an interesting question when you look at things today. If we just take modern popular fiction from the last century, how long can it last?

Anything before 1970ish is rare, there simply is very little of it out there; but everything after the 70's has had super saturation. For a kid in the 70's it was impossible to own a cartoon and watch it whenever you wanted. Buy the 80's you could easily record anything, but the 90's you could easily buy anything and by 2000 you could easily find and download things online. Not to mention that in 1986 you could only get a dozen or so cartoons on a VHS tape(if your cut out the commercials, opening, closing and such), but by 2012 you can if several dozen whole series of shows on small data drives.

And that super saturation is important. The 20 to 40 crowd has most of the fiction. It's not uncommon for people to own say a ton of LotR stuff. But a lot of this comes from that they remember when the stuff was still 'rare'. Now look at the younger generation of under 20. They care much, much less about fiction at all. They have been ultra super saturated and spoiled with way too much media.

And worse, most fiction has hit a wall. ''Everything'' has been done already......to death. The problem is that they really have a hard time thinking of anything 'new and fresh'. As everyone has noticed, the last decade or so has been full of remakes. And it's simple enough, if you do a remake you can tap the pre-existing fan base. But if you make something new, then your starting from scratch.

Things like Star Wars are still popular, but that is fading. Slowly the older fans will die off, and the younger ones simply won't be interested. And after a couple more years it will simply be forgotten. And most other things, such as anime will fade much faster.

Raimun
2012-07-01, 08:44 PM
To achieve immortal status, the work has to have that "something" that sets it apart. I believe it's a mixture of quality, originality, accessibility and being at the right place at the right time.

People still (mis)quote and reference a certain dramatic plot point at end of the Empire Strikes Back.

I don't know much about Halo 2 or the second season of Stargate but I'm somewhat sceptical people will mention their plot points in casual conversation after 32 years of their release/first airing.

Eakin
2012-07-01, 09:04 PM
I disagree. While it is true that amount of media produced increases in time, this is because population is growing so there is more people writing things. Also, with the Internet's growing popularity, more and more people write fanfiction, make internet videos and similar content that is available for all and would be limited to the insides of their own heads or notebooks in past years.

But if we put aside these fan-level works, as opposed to professional ones, we will find the increase to be not so large. It's not that Tolkien, Wilde or Shakespeare had less rivals and we are drowning in a sea of worthwhile media now. There was a lot of media back then as well, but most of it was mediocre and did not survive the test of time. Just as most of what we have now will be forgotten in 20+ years.

I believe that the increase in speed media of all kinds is being released with is VASTLY outstripping the rate of global population growth.

Plus it isn't so easy to draw a bright line distinction between "fan created content" and professional work. It's easier than ever to self publish. Or just look at a book like 50 Shades of Grey, which was Twilight fan fiction until a publisher snapped it up. Actually, DON'T look at it, because everything I've heard suggests that it's really really bad.


This is an interesting question when you look at things today. If we just take modern popular fiction from the last century, how long can it last?

Anything before 1970ish is rare, there simply is very little of it out there; but everything after the 70's has had super saturation. For a kid in the 70's it was impossible to own a cartoon and watch it whenever you wanted. Buy the 80's you could easily record anything, but the 90's you could easily buy anything and by 2000 you could easily find and download things online. Not to mention that in 1986 you could only get a dozen or so cartoons on a VHS tape(if your cut out the commercials, opening, closing and such), but by 2012 you can if several dozen whole series of shows on small data drives.

And that super saturation is important. The 20 to 40 crowd has most of the fiction. It's not uncommon for people to own say a ton of LotR stuff. But a lot of this comes from that they remember when the stuff was still 'rare'. Now look at the younger generation of under 20. They care much, much less about fiction at all. They have been ultra super saturated and spoiled with way too much media.

And worse, most fiction has hit a wall. ''Everything'' has been done already......to death. The problem is that they really have a hard time thinking of anything 'new and fresh'. As everyone has noticed, the last decade or so has been full of remakes. And it's simple enough, if you do a remake you can tap the pre-existing fan base. But if you make something new, then your starting from scratch.

Things like Star Wars are still popular, but that is fading. Slowly the older fans will die off, and the younger ones simply won't be interested. And after a couple more years it will simply be forgotten. And most other things, such as anime will fade much faster.

I think that everything had been done long before the internet, but until sites like TVTropes appeared people didn't necessarily draw the connections between disparate works that are easy to see now.

Even when you start something new you're still drawing on influences people are more likely to be familiar with than they used to be. Look at Avatar (the movie) which isn't a reboot or remake. It still gets dissed a lot online because we recognize all the tropes it used and where they already appeared.

Gamer Girl
2012-07-02, 08:02 PM
Of course most things are older then dirt. For example the 'brother vs brother' story idea has been around from Day One. The wicked step mother, the old wise wizard and the reckless youth are more examples that date back forever.


I don't think any geek franchises will make it much past 100 years or so, unless you count spin offs, reboots, re-images and remakes. For example the 80/90's did give us more Star Trek, but only after years of nothing. So saying Star Trek has been relevant for 40 years is a bit misleading.

The thing is what people like changes over time, and old books/movies/TV shows don't. And you can't make things that are timeless.

More so, the average person under 30 has not read or seen any of the so called 'great' books or movies on the classic top 100 lists. And they have very little desire to do so. That type of old stuff just does not talk to them.

And from 2000 and on you have much more competition, where has older people did not. Anyone under 20 or so was born in a world with 500 channels and on demand. But take me, for example: A couple years ago there were only six channels(three networks, two local UHF ones, and PBS) and there was very little sci-fi on TV. Until I found Doctor Who, played late at night on my PBS station. So I would adjust the antenna on top of my TV(with tin foil and a wire coat hanger, though I would often just have to hold it to get a clear picture) and watch it. A lot of the stories were beyond bad, but I had nothing else to watch and soon fell in love with the show.


And I doubt video games like Halo can last too much longer then a couple years...

thubby
2012-07-02, 08:51 PM
the important thing is the ability to move through generations. mario, sonic, and link aren't just recognizable to me, but are appealing to people 10+ years younger than me and the games still hold up.

Joran
2012-07-02, 09:08 PM
the important thing is the ability to move through generations. mario, sonic, and link aren't just recognizable to me, but are appealing to people 10+ years younger than me and the games still hold up.

Mario and Link, yes. Sonic to a much lesser degree.

For video game franchises, Mario and Link will be around as long as Nintendo is a force. Once Nintendo fades, then they'll probably be forgotten, like Sonic's fortunes were tied to Sega's.

The one video game franchise I bet will continue on into perpetuity is Civilization. That concept is ageless.

Star Wars has a chance, since a lot of my generation (I'm 30) and older view those movies with a huge amount of nostalgia. I'm going to indoctrinate my young'un with Star Wars once she's able to watch movies. Likewise with the Princess Bride.

Harry Potter has a chance to be this generation's Lord of the Rings, the book that the parents enjoyed and will read to the young'uns. My wife was read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit when she was young, which is why she's a big fan of it now.

As a Star Trek fan, it does pain me to think that Star Trek is mostly going to fade.

Lord Seth
2012-07-02, 09:43 PM
Mario and Link, yes. Sonic to a much lesser degree.

For video game franchises, Mario and Link will be around as long as Nintendo is a force. Once Nintendo fades, then they'll probably be forgotten, like Sonic's fortunes were tied to Sega's.Sonic still isn't forgotten, and there's still games coming out. Yeah, he's not as popular, but I think that has more to do with the fact for a while his games dropped noticeably in quality whereas Mario's games stayed good (well, I think Super Mario Sunshine was a dip in quality, but it was still okay).

Joran
2012-07-03, 01:06 AM
Sonic still isn't forgotten, and there's still games coming out. Yeah, he's not as popular, but I think that has more to do with the fact for a while his games dropped noticeably in quality whereas Mario's games stayed good (well, I think Super Mario Sunshine was a dip in quality, but it was still okay).

Games dropped noticeably in quality and Sega stopped making consoles, so his reach was greatly diminished. I honestly can't remember the last Sonic game I saw and I'm on the periphery of gaming enthusiasm. The only reason I remember Sonic is because I was around during the Genesis vs. SNES wars.

Telonius mentioned Superman (and other superheroes) and gets a gold star. He and Batman are 75-80 years old and still going strong.

Xondoure
2012-07-03, 01:24 AM
Games dropped noticeably in quality and Sega stopped making consoles, so his reach was greatly diminished. I honestly can't remember the last Sonic game I saw and I'm on the periphery of gaming enthusiasm. The only reason I remember Sonic is because I was around during the Genesis vs. SNES wars.

Telonius mentioned Superman (and other superheroes) and gets a gold star. He and Batman are 75-80 years old and still going strong.

Sonic's doing just fine. He's been spending more time with Mario which has helped his publicity.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-03, 08:36 AM
Some geek franchises have already gotten basically immortal. Superman, Batman, and (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent) Spider-Man are probably going to be remembered for at least a hundred years.

In a way, they already HAVE lasted a hundred years. Superman was created 1932, and first published 1938 in the form we recognize today, so that's 74 or even 80 years of continued existence. Batman is almost as old, and even Spiderman already has 50 years on his back. Star Trek and Star Wars are a little younger, but I think a movie/television series that has stayed relevant and fresh for more than 30 years is already rare, and both show no sign of going away, although they have changed greatly over time.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-07-03, 04:17 PM
Comicbooks are something of a unique creature. Its difficult to argue any particular piece has a serious fandom, even the big names.

As for eternal durablity its something of an open question, but I feel the urge to point out that all the movies of the past decade haven't translated too much into increased comic book sales. For that matter you still have a harder time finding them then when I was growing up.

GolemsVoice
2012-07-03, 04:28 PM
But the franchise, the name is present, and has successfully translated in a variety of mediums (from comic books to video games and cinema, for example), which could be taken as a kind of success. After all, this is not about Batman comic books only, but about Batman as a whole (or Superman, or Star Wars etc...)

Xondoure
2012-07-03, 05:04 PM
the comic books are a lot like a skeleton for the rest of the beast (tv shows, films, video games, action figures, backpacks, other merchandise, etcetera.)

dps
2012-07-04, 06:57 PM
Ignoring the "geek" part of the question, I'd say that, barring an apocolypse, some of our current entertainment franchises will certainly still be relevant in the 22nd Century, but which ones is a bit harder to say.

First off, anything from earlier than 1800 that still has any popularity and relevance is almost a given to still be so in the next century, so I'm not going to bother with listing Shakespeare, Homer, etc.

Most anything from before 1900 will probably still have some currency in a hundred years, but it's not a given. Certainly I'd expect Sherlock Holmes to still be well-known, but also Frankenstein, Dracula, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and a few others. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that the original works will still be widely read, but if you mention "Dracula" or "Tom Sawyer" in 2112, I figure most everyone would know instantly what you were talking about.

Stuff from the early part of the 20th Century (roughly pre-WWII) that I'm guessing will still be around: Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, the more popular DC Comics superheroes, The 3 Stooges, The Lone Ranger, Sinatra, maybe a few others.

Mid-20th Century franchises (WWII-mid 60's or so): Lucille Ball, Peanuts, Elvis, Dune, Tolkien's Middle Earth, Doctor Who, Star Trek (especially the original series; yeah, it's kind of dated, but it's much more iconic than TNG, and the other TV versions are already fading from pop consciousness--in the case of Voyager, some people wish that they could forget it quicker!), The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, James Bond, Spiderman, probably others.

Late 20th Century Franchises (c. mid 60's-2000): Jim Henson's Muppets (including Sesame Street here), Python, certainly others but I'm not sure which ones I'd pick to survive.

21st Century Franchises: It's really hard to pick here. We just don't have enough perspective on things that are currently popular. I'd guess that Harry Potter is more likely to still be popular after a century than Twilight, but it's just a guess (and yes, I'm aware that technically, the 1st Harry Potter book came out in 1997, not since 2000.)

Gnoman
2012-07-04, 07:08 PM
I don't think any geek franchises will make it much past 100 years or so, unless you count spin offs, reboots, re-images and remakes. For example the 80/90's did give us more Star Trek, but only after years of nothing. So saying Star Trek has been relevant for 40 years is a bit misleading.


Dozens of novels, highly profitable adaptations of the episodes, an animated series, fan magazines, and at least one board game is hardly "nothing." Star Trek was more culturally relevant in the period between TOS and TMP than most franchises ever become.

dps
2012-07-05, 08:15 PM
Dozens of novels, highly profitable adaptations of the episodes, an animated series, fan magazines, and at least one board game is hardly "nothing." Star Trek was more culturally relevant in the period between TOS and TMP than most franchises ever become.

You get into some really grey areas IMO when you try to decide if something is relevant or not. Probably better to just go with whether or not people in general are still familiar with it.

For example, compare and contrast the Three Stooges with The Beatles. Everybody (OK, obviously not literally everybody, but most everybody who is savvy about American pop culture) still knows who the Three Stooges are, and can recognize their classic bits. But on another level, you could reasonably argue that they were never, even at the height of their popularity, particularly relevant. Did they influence other acts, or other parts of our culture? No, not really. The Beatles, OTOH, not only influenced other musicians, but also other parts of culture, such as fashion. Heck, they didn't just influence fashion, for several years they set the fashion in clothing and hair. They even influenced our political culture to a degree (though I think the extent to which they and other 60's rock acts had an impact on politics has been overestimated). So while I think that both the Three Stooges and the Beatles will still be well-known and popular 100 years from now, I'd say that the Beatles had a degree of relevance that the Stooges never had.

Zarrgon
2012-07-05, 10:10 PM
You get into some really grey areas IMO when you try to decide if something is relevant or not. Probably better to just go with whether or not people in general are still familiar with it.


It's interesting to note that Star Trek does have quite relevance in our culture. It's safe to say that that concepts like ''Red Shirts'', ''Warp Speed'', ''Shields'', ''Tractor Beams'', and ''Cloaks''. Plus concepts like ''there are many universes'' and ''some universes are just like ours, but different''. And even things like the metaphors like ''Aye Captain I got the warp core hot wired like a Christmas Tree on the 4th of July!'' or ''I'm a Doctor, not a Bricklayer''

Kids from 9 or so, all the way to adults of 99 understand and even use all of the above Star Trek concepts. (My grandma, who might have watched one episode of Star Trek at some point, fully understands the ''Red Shirt'' concept, for example, while my young niece fully understands ''warp speed'' equals fast).

And that is just Classic Trek. At least half of our culture is aware of the newer Star Trek. For example a great many people are aware of a ''Patrick Stewart Speech'' as even if you have only seen a couple TNG shoes you have likely seen one.

And Star Trek does pop up in just about any and every TV show or movie quite often.

dps
2012-07-05, 10:38 PM
It's interesting to note that Star Trek does have quite relevance in our culture. It's safe to say that that concepts like ''Red Shirts'', ''Warp Speed'', ''Shields'', ''Tractor Beams'', and ''Cloaks''. Plus concepts like ''there are many universes'' and ''some universes are just like ours, but different''. And even things like the metaphors like ''Aye Captain I got the warp core hot wired like a Christmas Tree on the 4th of July!'' or ''I'm a Doctor, not a Bricklayer''

Kids from 9 or so, all the way to adults of 99 understand and even use all of the above Star Trek concepts. (My grandma, who might have watched one episode of Star Trek at some point, fully understands the ''Red Shirt'' concept, for example, while my young niece fully understands ''warp speed'' equals fast).

And that is just Classic Trek. At least half of our culture is aware of the newer Star Trek. For example a great many people are aware of a ''Patrick Stewart Speech'' as even if you have only seen a couple TNG shoes you have likely seen one.

And Star Trek does pop up in just about any and every TV show or movie quite often.

Yeah, I think that concepts from Trek will almost certainly still be in use in 100 year; the question is whether or not people will still be familiar with the show itself or just be aware of the concepts without realizing that they come from Star Trek, or indeed without even having any idea what Star Trek is.

Lord Seth
2012-07-05, 11:48 PM
It's interesting to note that Star Trek does have quite relevance in our culture. It's safe to say that that concepts like ''Red Shirts'', ''Warp Speed'', ''Shields'', ''Tractor Beams'', and ''Cloaks''.Red shirts and warp speed, yes. The others I'm dubious about really being originally from Star Trek. Even ignoring that or supposing Star Trek was at least what popularized them, I don't think they're intrinsically tied to Star Trek. Red shirt and warp speed (at least the term warp speed, not faster-than-light travel in general) are, but not the others. They can be as easily connected to, say, Star Wars.
Plus concepts like ''there are many universes'' and ''some universes are just like ours, but different''.This idea existed in DC Comics before Star Trek. Indeed, Arthur C. Clarke had it before even that in "The Other Tiger" (1953). Again, even assuming Star Trek popularized the concept, it is hardly intrinsically tied to it.


And even things like the metaphors like ''Aye Captain I got the warp core hot wired like a Christmas Tree on the 4th of July!'' or ''I'm a Doctor, not a Bricklayer''I've never heard anyone say the first one, and I don't hear the latter much either.
For example a great many people are aware of a ''Patrick Stewart Speech'' as even if you have only seen a couple TNG shoes you have likely seen one.I watched almost every episode of TNG and I didn't ever think of that concept until it was pointed out to me. I'm really dubious that "a great many people" are aware of such a concept.

dehro
2012-07-07, 07:25 AM
mmmh geek franchises, even the oldest ones, are very much still with us. reruns of pretty much every franchise are shown on one or the other channel, dedicated or not as may be, in most non-third-world countries in the world. I don't know and wouldn't know how to check, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the states, a TV station is sending out reruns of Star Trek TOS, same goes for Battlestar Galactica (the old series) and so on.
ask this question when these franchises are effectively not shown anymore.. then we'll see if it can be answered. until then, there are bound to be people who are watching it for the sake of old times, and people who are discovering it for the first time. think also about migration of individuals and franchises. some franchises are sparkling new in countries where they're being shown for the first time when they've been long over and done with in the States.. other franchises are being re-discovered by people who are new to the country and then "export" it.. I myself discovered Doctor Who only when I moved to the UK and it was already in the second nu-who season. it's now being shown in Italy (a season or two later, I think) for what I believe to be the first time...gathering new fans as it goes.
it's hard to tell whether any franchise that is generally considered good has already met it's expiry date, in fandom terms, when you go at conventions and see parents and sometimes grandparents bring their little ones to the event... because they love the franchise as much if not more than their kids

thubby
2012-07-07, 07:49 AM
that's a rather silly premise. it's kind of like saying "wait until Shakespeare goes out of print, then we'll see who influential it is"
it's not going to happen (for the foreseeable future anyway) because it's so influential.

Yora
2012-07-07, 08:10 AM
I think the main issue is if a work can remain meaningful outside the specific cultural environment from which it originated. It must be a story that people can relate to. If the story works even if you don't know anything about the creators society and the issues of the time, then it can hold up very long.

The exception are works that become institutionalized, like Shakespear or Goethe. People are exposed to them not because they have interest, but because they are forced to. And in the more "cultured" layers of society, knowing about these works becomes a basic social skill that one has to have. Like wine ettiquete or dress codes. But that happens to only a rather small number.

I think it really comes down to what works can stand up in isolation from the environment that created them. Simpsons is a long runner, but I don't think it will remain mainstream for long once it ended. On the other hand, Avatar is self contained, and I think you can show it to kids in 60 years and they'll enjoy it as much as we did.
(Avatar even has fictional slang, so it won't suffer from outdated language. :smallbiggrin: )

AtS
2012-07-09, 12:14 AM
On the other hand, Avatar is self contained, and I think you can show it to kids in 60 years and they'll enjoy it as much as we did.
(Avatar even has fictional slang, so it won't suffer from outdated language. :smallbiggrin: )

It also has the benefit of hand-drawn artwork, the aesthetics of which are far less susceptible to becoming dated in the future.

Am I the only person that is infuriated by the obsession with 3D animation? Pixar is the only company that can even come close to pulling off "timeless" 3D, and even they're not perfect at it - Toy Story looks awful by today's standards.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-09, 12:51 AM
idk. People mentioned Shakespeare and Homer...but they are at a very much higher level than the 3 Stooges or Star Trek.

Homer wrote one of the first novels ever. His work was beloved by the most famous general ever. Homer directly influenced Alexander. Alexander GREATLY influenced the ancient Euro-Asian world.

Any people that are changing the world; doing so by referencing the 3 Stooges?

I think that one has to ask oneself if the character/show/pop cultural event...has any lasting meaning that isn't repeated elsewhere? Homer for example...was breaking new ground. Shakespeare was as well...but to a far lesser degree. (fancy soap operas and morality lessons existed pre-Shakespeare)

But between Homer and Shakespeare...there was thousands of years. How much of THAT survived? You cannot just say well Homer survived...therefore Betty Boop will. I mean really? My son has no idea whatsoever who Shirley Temple was...I've only seen 30 second clips late at night when they are trying to sell memories to old farts. What I've seen? She was a cute kid that could sing and dance. Very replaceable imo. Unless you are very old and she represents something greater than a cute kid that could sing and dance.

My son has no clue who Charlie Chaplin was. I was forced to watch Gold Rush in a film studies class in high school. I would never in a gazillion years rent another of his movies...if I could even find one.

Will Star Trek be relevant to YOU when you are an old fart? Probably. But that is not a guarantee of anything except that you will cling onto memories as your life's credits roll.

Proof? Compare the required reading of your time...vs current curriculums. They change. Books that were known by everyone my age? Are replaced. If the material isn't truly important...it will disappear entirely.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-09, 01:10 AM
For the record...99.9% of all animated stuff I expect to have no lasting impression upon the world at large. It's just not important. Even the "Godfather" characters of animation...Mickey Mouse...Donald Duck...my son thinks they are the lamest ever. And honestly? I think that's he's right. I'd MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH rather watch Gravity Falls...than the greatest Mickey Mouse episode ever. I never see anyone wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt that is older than 3. (and quite frankly I see very few 3 year olds with Mickey)

Most of what is discussed on this board...I expect to have no lasting "effect" on the world...ever. It's entertainment with and without morality lessons strewn in.

I want new entertainment...always. Besides maybe martial arts movies...I cannot stand the VAST majority of stuff from the 70's and earlier. Even stuff that I saw as a kid as reruns? I watch it now and cringe. It was mostly very bad. Very cheesy. Embarrassing if you are trying to show it to a younger generation and claim it as "important."

Xondoure
2012-07-09, 01:28 AM
idk. People mentioned Shakespeare and Homer...but they are at a very much higher level than the 3 Stooges or Star Trek.

Homer wrote one of the first novels ever. His work was beloved by the most famous general ever. Homer directly influenced Alexander. Alexander GREATLY influenced the ancient Euro-Asian world.

Any people that are changing the world; doing so by referencing the 3 Stooges?

I think that one has to ask oneself if the character/show/pop cultural event...has any lasting meaning that isn't repeated elsewhere? Homer for example...was breaking new ground. Shakespeare was as well...but to a far lesser degree. (fancy soap operas and morality lessons existed pre-Shakespeare)

But between Homer and Shakespeare...there was thousands of years. How much of THAT survived? You cannot just say well Homer survived...therefore Betty Boop will. I mean really? My son has no idea whatsoever who Shirley Temple was...I've only seen 30 second clips late at night when they are trying to sell memories to old farts. What I've seen? She was a cute kid that could sing and dance. Very replaceable imo. Unless you are very old and she represents something greater than a cute kid that could sing and dance.

My son has no clue who Charlie Chaplin was. I was forced to watch Gold Rush in a film studies class in high school. I would never in a gazillion years rent another of his movies...if I could even find one.

Will Star Trek be relevant to YOU when you are an old fart? Probably. But that is not a guarantee of anything except that you will cling onto memories as your life's credits roll.

Proof? Compare the required reading of your time...vs current curriculums. They change. Books that were known by everyone my age? Are replaced. If the material isn't truly important...it will disappear entirely.

There are key differences between now and a thousand years ago however. Most importantly that knowledge distribution has never been more vast. Charlie Chaplin for example, will survive for as long as there are classes on film history. Seeing as he's a key figure when discussing the silent film era. So yes, not everything will be Homer. But to say that information is always lost is just as false. After all, the Illiad isn't the only ancient greek tale still available to us now, just the most famous one.

DomaDoma
2012-07-09, 06:46 AM
On that note, anything that went on on the Internet is not going to be remembered decades from now. The records simply aren't preserved, and if you don't believe me - "everything lasts forever on the internet" being as widespread a notion it is - try tracking down a thread in your favorite bulletin board from ten years ago. Heck, we won't even have to wait for OotS to be finished before this conversation is expunged.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-09, 09:17 AM
There are key differences between now and a thousand years ago however. Most importantly that knowledge distribution has never been more vast. Charlie Chaplin for example, will survive for as long as there are classes on film history. Seeing as he's a key figure when discussing the silent film era. So yes, not everything will be Homer. But to say that information is always lost is just as false. After all, the Illiad isn't the only ancient greek tale still available to us now, just the most famous one.

It's not lost to us now...BECAUSE of Alexander and the importance that HE placed upon it. If he had the opposite feeling...thought that Homer was complete and utter _____. Those works might simply not exist at all for modern consumption. While that applies to a FAR lesser degree with people and for example Charlie Chaplin...

Charlie Chaplin is a key figure in a era that is beyond dated. An era that ONLY scholars care about. They think it's important and force it upon students who do not. What about when the students become teachers? The work no longer functions as it was intended. The work is broken.

Read the Iliad. It is still functioning as it was intended. It is an entertaining and imaginative work that causes people to think.

This whole conversation runs parallel to another "will this endure" thread that I've participated in previously. People. Which people will matter in a 100 years? Celebrities? Politicians? Scientists? You? I say none of the above.
Why? First of all how do you define "endure?" Let's use "you" Let's say you accomplished something really great. What exactly will people know about "you?" Your birthdate? Maybe. What you accomplished? Probably. Who you were as a person? Not really. Future people will know what future authors thoughts of you as a person...and non-subjective stuff like dates. Is THAT enduring? A vague mental postcard of a person that is based upon another person's thoughts about tiny slivers of your life?

You read a plaque about Margaret Humperdink that did this and that for this and that persons...do you now KNOW Margaret Humperdink? Is she enduring?

People that SHOULD be remembered...are not. The 10th President of the U.S.A. is? Go ahead look it up. It's John Tyler and he was a constitutional conservative. (in the Whig Party...a party that grew to hate him) IMO he'd be completely and utterly appalled at what has happened to America today. If he was AS I IMAGINE him to be...he'd say "I told you so...a thousand times over...I told you so." He was against any kind of centralized banking system realizing that the power such an institution would have would be greater than the power of the government and of it's people. He was a proponent of using tariffs to stop off shoring of goods/labor. Others would have completely different viewpoints on him...do any of us know John Tyler? Did he endure?

Yora
2012-07-09, 10:32 AM
It also has the benefit of hand-drawn artwork, the aesthetics of which are far less susceptible to becoming dated in the future.

Am I the only person that is infuriated by the obsession with 3D animation? Pixar is the only company that can even come close to pulling off "timeless" 3D, and even they're not perfect at it - Toy Story looks awful by today's standards.

It's like stop motion clay figures, you just can build larger environments quicker.

Bulldog Psion
2012-07-09, 11:52 AM
Well, far be it from me to say which will live and which will die. But I do think that we have a new factor in play, too -- a large, literate population with ready access to information, which creates fans. So I doubt that there will be as many universal classics, but I suspect that most of the better written stuff will have enclaves of fans for a long, long time.

There are Lovecraft fans, there are Edgar Rice Burroughs fans, there are Tolkien fans, there are Zelazny fans, there are Robert E. Howard fans, etc. etc.

It's not too much of a stretch to see "enclaves" of such folk existing in 50 or 100 years, too.

So I doubt that anything will rival the Iliad or Shakespeare, but I think that there are enough literate people with ready information access to keep "fandoms" going for a long, long time.

Sure, some stuff will go by the wayside -- probably a lot of it. But I'm going to quote something from one of my fandoms :smallwink: ...

"The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost ..."

grimbold
2012-07-09, 12:01 PM
Once Civilisation will crumble to dust, on the scorched earth that will come after it remmants of humanity will read holy scriputers left by the anciets, foretelling the life and times of god of Red, Blue and Yellow, The Bat Of The Night And The Human Who Crawls Like A Spider. And the Hulk, be blessed he, for he is the strongest.

this made my day

i think that the lifetime of some geek things will surprise us, tv hasn't been around all that long and it'll be interesting to see how it fits into culture in 400 years..

The Extinguisher
2012-07-09, 12:30 PM
It's not lost to us now...BECAUSE of Alexander and the importance that HE placed upon it. If he had the opposite feeling...thought that Homer was complete and utter _____. Those works might simply not exist at all for modern consumption. While that applies to a FAR lesser degree with people and for example Charlie Chaplin...

Charlie Chaplin is a key figure in a era that is beyond dated. An era that ONLY scholars care about. They think it's important and force it upon students who do not. What about when the students become teachers? The work no longer functions as it was intended. The work is broken.

Read the Iliad. It is still functioning as it was intended. It is an entertaining and imaginative work that causes people to think.


Wait.

When was the last time a teenager read the Iliad when it wasn't for school? I don't get you're argument. There's plenty of people who wouldn't find it entertaining or imaginative, and think that teachers are only forcing it on them.

dehro
2012-07-09, 01:19 PM
Wait.

When was the last time a teenager read the Iliad when it wasn't for school? I don't get you're argument. There's plenty of people who wouldn't find it entertaining or imaginative, and think that teachers are only forcing it on them.

plenty of "new versions" of the classic tales are written every few years. and I reckon are enjoyed again.. do I need to mention Gemmell's Troy series?

LordRahl6
2012-07-09, 01:56 PM
Another factor to consider in something's staying power is who is running the franchise. This is especially important to the Post WWII stuff. For example Majel Barrett continued to oversee operations after Gene Rodenberry's death even though the she didn't handle the day to day stuff. It was only after her death that CBS sold it to Abrams. (and I'm still not totally convinced it was the right move:smallsigh:) Brian Henson was at least for a while in the same category with muppet-related projects which are much more numerous than many realize.

As for anything in any media over a century now that people still talk about are definitive classics.:smallwink:

Lord Seth
2012-07-09, 02:04 PM
On that note, anything that went on on the Internet is not going to be remembered decades from now. The records simply aren't preserved, and if you don't believe me - "everything lasts forever on the internet" being as widespread a notion it is - try tracking down a thread in your favorite bulletin board from ten years ago. Heck, we won't even have to wait for OotS to be finished before this conversation is expunged.Huh? No, it'll stay around. It might fall off the main page(s) and have to be searched for, but it'll still be here. "Expunge" is to remove it entirely, which is not the same as going into the archive.

mangosta71
2012-07-09, 02:18 PM
Red shirts and warp speed, yes. The others I'm dubious about really being originally from Star Trek. Even ignoring that or supposing Star Trek was at least what popularized them, I don't think they're intrinsically tied to Star Trek. Red shirt and warp speed (at least the term warp speed, not faster-than-light travel in general) are, but not the others. They can be as easily connected to, say, Star Wars.
The problem with your point here is that Trek popularized the terms to which you refer a decade before Wars existed.

Xondoure
2012-07-09, 02:27 PM
The problem with your point here is that Trek popularized the terms to which you refer a decade before Wars existed.

So they established the term, that doesn't mean when people think of it they think of Star Trek. Not that I think Star Trek is going anywhere.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-09, 03:30 PM
Wait.

When was the last time a teenager read the Iliad when it wasn't for school? I don't get you're argument. There's plenty of people who wouldn't find it entertaining or imaginative, and think that teachers are only forcing it on them.

I never read the Iliad in school. I first read about Alexander...then of course HAD to read the Iliad. How could anybody that has read any story of Alexander that was worth a hill of beans...not come to the conclusion that the Iliad was must read material?

Plus before even reading the Iliad...I knew characters/events from it. I knew of the Trojan war. Achilles. Helen (the face that launched 1,000 ships) The Trojan horse. These ALL came from Homer. We feel that they MAY be backed by actual events...but we all know them from Homer.

JoeMac307
2012-07-09, 03:30 PM
Some geek franchises have already gotten basically immortal. Superman, Batman, and (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent) Spider-Man are probably going to be remembered for at least a hundred years.


Superman and Batman are both over 70 yrs old, and Spider-Man just hit 50 years old, and they've all been continuously published throughout that entire time span. I think it is very easy to guess they will still be around 100 years from now, possibly longer, just constantly updated and revised. Just like Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Doctor Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man.

Joran
2012-07-09, 05:25 PM
For the record...99.9% of all animated stuff I expect to have no lasting impression upon the world at large. It's just not important. Even the "Godfather" characters of animation...Mickey Mouse...Donald Duck...my son thinks they are the lamest ever. And honestly? I think that's he's right. I'd MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH rather watch Gravity Falls...than the greatest Mickey Mouse episode ever. I never see anyone wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt that is older than 3. (and quite frankly I see very few 3 year olds with Mickey)



Mickey Mouse has lasted for more than 80 years and is the mascot for one of the world's largest media companies and is one of the most recognizable cartoon characters in the world. As long as Disney is around (and I have no reason to believe they won't be around for many more decades), Mickey will be relevant.

And I've seen people wearing Mickey Mouse shirts older than 3. Go to Disney World and you'll see hundreds of people wearing Mickey Mouse ears, young and old.

I'd argue that the Disney Princesses are more popular now, but Mickey has and will endure as an iconic character.


Plus before even reading the Iliad...I knew characters/events from it. I knew of the Trojan war. Achilles. Helen (the face that launched 1,000 ships) The Trojan horse. These ALL came from Homer. We feel that they MAY be backed by actual events...but we all know them from Homer.

Hilariously, I think "Trojan Horse" is the most well-known part of the Iliad. The only reason I know about the rest is because my school system placed a heavy emphasis on Greek mythology. I've read the Odyssey, but not the Iliad and I've read more Sophocles than Homer.

If you want to be depressed, ask a person on the street who Alexander the Great was and where he was from.

Lord Seth
2012-07-09, 05:27 PM
The problem with your point here is that Trek popularized the terms to which you refer a decade before Wars existed.Not my point. I was saying that you don't have to know anything about Star Trek to know of the concept of faster-than-light travel. That's all around science fiction and certainly preceded Star Trek. My point was that someone, when thinking of that, could just as easily think of Star Wars as Star Trek. Or something else entirely. Or maybe nothing in particular.

Joran
2012-07-09, 05:34 PM
Not my point. I was saying that you don't have to know anything about Star Trek to know of the concept of faster-than-light travel. That's all around science fiction and certainly preceded Star Trek. My point was that someone, when thinking of that, could just as easily think of Star Wars as Star Trek. Or something else entirely. Or maybe nothing in particular.

True. I think the things that will endure from Star Trek are the transporter "Beam me up, Scotty" and the Vulcan Salute (Live Long and Prosper along with the idea of Vulcans).

Real life has caught up to Star Trek to the point that iconic pieces of technology like the Communicator (cell phones) and the PADD (tablet computers) have already become reality.

Tvtyrant
2012-07-09, 05:34 PM
I'm absolutely certain some things will survive, but which ones are up to the winds of time to decide.

My Ur-example is Confucius. Before the First Emperor his philosophy was one of many, and lacked the influence of the legalist school. When the First Emperor set about burning all of the philosophical tracts and history books he could get his imperial hands on, Confucianism suddenly became extremely important as one of the few counters to Legalism. I'm not saying that a similar event is likely, but we simply cannot know what historical processes will transform run of the mill cultural aspects into dominant tendencies.

Karl Marx is maybe even better as an example.

Zarrgon
2012-07-09, 06:04 PM
Not my point. I was saying that you don't have to know anything about Star Trek to know of the concept of faster-than-light travel. That's all around science fiction and certainly preceded Star Trek. My point was that someone, when thinking of that, could just as easily think of Star Wars as Star Trek. Or something else entirely. Or maybe nothing in particular.

I was never trying to say Star Trek invented any of the Sci-fi stuff....they did not. Most Sci-fi stuff was thought up way, way before Star Trek(and way, way, way before Star Wars, and way times ten before things like the Matrix and Avatar). But the point of the thread is not 'who had the first geek franchise idea, but what is relevant. So sure, just about every sci-fi show or novel uses 'faster then light travel', but the one most people will know is Warp Speed from Star Trek.

My point was more that Star Trek has been seen by more people then most other 'geek franchises' combined. While people don't like to think about the fact, but few adults over the age of 40 will ever watch something like Anime or play a game like Halo or watch a show like Smallville. But Star Trek is know by people from 1 to 99.

So, Star Trek, did not invent 'accidental time travel stories(I think the record holder would be Mark Twain, right?), but when you ask someone about the idea, they will most likely think of a Star Trek example. The same way that if you mention an 'evil mirror universe', people will think of Star Trek. Now sure, A geek will jump up and say ''Oh on Gellxplex Six they did the in show number five'', but the other billion people will think of Star Trek.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-09, 06:48 PM
I was never trying to say Star Trek invented any of the Sci-fi stuff....they did not. Most Sci-fi stuff was thought up way, way before Star Trek(and way, way, way before Star Wars, and way times ten before things like the Matrix and Avatar). But the point of the thread is not 'who had the first geek franchise idea, but what is relevant. So sure, just about every sci-fi show or novel uses 'faster then light travel', but the one most people will know is Warp Speed from Star Trek.

My point was more that Star Trek has been seen by more people then most other 'geek franchises' combined. While people don't like to think about the fact, but few adults over the age of 40 will ever watch something like Anime or play a game like Halo or watch a show like Smallville. But Star Trek is know by people from 1 to 99.

So, Star Trek, did not invent 'accidental time travel stories(I think the record holder would be Mark Twain, right?), but when you ask someone about the idea, they will most likely think of a Star Trek example. The same way that if you mention an 'evil mirror universe', people will think of Star Trek. Now sure, A geek will jump up and say ''Oh on Gellxplex Six they did the in show number five'', but the other billion people will think of Star Trek.

Smallville is a pretty popular tv show...I'm quite certain that people over 40 have seen it. People that age tend to have children. They tend to look for family entertainment that they can stand. (seriously...have you seen a show like Annoying Orange?...Smallville is Shakespeare in the Park in comparison)
Also you might want to check demographics on video games. 40 year olds had Atari 2600's when they were 7 or so. They are the first true video game generation. They also had anime like Fist of the Northstar, Akira, Gundam, Vampire Hunter D...and so on and so forth. (when they were in their teens...those shows were repeats) Even earlier than that they had many anime styled fighting robots that are lions that form into mecha robots...Voltron...anime. Speed Racer...(a favorite metal band of mine waaaaaay back in the day was named after the "mysterious quasi-hero known as...RACER X.)

I did also watch Star TRek. William Shatner was still a real deal TV star when I was a kid.

I know because I am 41. I was into anime since perhaps before you were born?

On the flip side? "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" is my all time favorite Mark Twain story. Just saying. I was born in Connecticut...Mark Twain is a GOD there...and for once I agree with the mainstream of my upbringing...Twain WAS great.

IMHO Twain will outlive Star Trek by hundreds of years...maybe more. You can picture Tom Sawyer conning his friends into painting that fence. You can practically feel the sun on your cheeks. It's as great of a peek back in time as one can find in the realm of period fiction.

dehro
2012-07-09, 09:47 PM
Not that I think Star Trek is going anywhere.

that's pretty ironic
(isn't it supposed to boldly go where...?)

Avilan the Grey
2012-07-10, 04:43 AM
Mickey Mouse has lasted for more than 80 years and is the mascot for one of the world's largest media companies and is one of the most recognizable cartoon characters in the world. As long as Disney is around (and I have no reason to believe they won't be around for many more decades), Mickey will be relevant.

And I've seen people wearing Mickey Mouse shirts older than 3. Go to Disney World and you'll see hundreds of people wearing Mickey Mouse ears, young and old.

I'd argue that the Disney Princesses are more popular now, but Mickey has and will endure as an iconic character.

Not to mention that popularity varies between countries. Donald is by far the most popular "classic" Disney character in most of Europe for example.


that's pretty ironic
(isn't it supposed to boldly go where...?)

Now sing with me - Chorus:

"Star Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Boldly going forward 'cause we can't find reverse."

JoeMac307
2012-07-10, 03:42 PM
Not to mention that popularity varies between countries. Donald is by far the most popular "classic" Disney character in most of Europe for example.


Now that is a pretty interesting nugget that I was completely unaware of... I wonder why Donald is more popular in Europe? Does his sassy grumpiness appeal more to European sensibilities or something, unlike Mickey's saccarine "aw-shucks"-ness?

Gnoman
2012-07-10, 04:08 PM
IIRC, it was due to the extremely high quality of the Donald Duck comics. Disney comics sold extremely well in European countries, but quite poorly in the US.

dehro
2012-07-10, 05:30 PM
also, plenty of Donald Duck comics material was actually made in Europe to begin with, I believe, specifically, in Italy.

dps
2012-07-10, 05:33 PM
It's not lost to us now...BECAUSE of Alexander and the importance that HE placed upon it. If he had the opposite feeling...thought that Homer was complete and utter _____. Those works might simply not exist at all for modern consumption. While that applies to a FAR lesser degree with people and for example Charlie Chaplin...

Charlie Chaplin is a key figure in a era that is beyond dated. An era that ONLY scholars care about. They think it's important and force it upon students who do not. What about when the students become teachers? The work no longer functions as it was intended. The work is broken.

Read the Iliad. It is still functioning as it was intended. It is an entertaining and imaginative work that causes people to think.

This whole conversation runs parallel to another "will this endure" thread that I've participated in previously. People. Which people will matter in a 100 years? Celebrities? Politicians? Scientists? You? I say none of the above.
Why? First of all how do you define "endure?" Let's use "you" Let's say you accomplished something really great. What exactly will people know about "you?" Your birthdate? Maybe. What you accomplished? Probably. Who you were as a person? Not really. Future people will know what future authors thoughts of you as a person...and non-subjective stuff like dates. Is THAT enduring? A vague mental postcard of a person that is based upon another person's thoughts about tiny slivers of your life?

You read a plaque about Margaret Humperdink that did this and that for this and that persons...do you now KNOW Margaret Humperdink? Is she enduring?

People that SHOULD be remembered...are not. The 10th President of the U.S.A. is? Go ahead look it up. It's John Tyler and he was a constitutional conservative. (in the Whig Party...a party that grew to hate him) IMO he'd be completely and utterly appalled at what has happened to America today. If he was AS I IMAGINE him to be...he'd say "I told you so...a thousand times over...I told you so." He was against any kind of centralized banking system realizing that the power such an institution would have would be greater than the power of the government and of it's people. He was a proponent of using tariffs to stop off shoring of goods/labor. Others would have completely different viewpoints on him...do any of us know John Tyler? Did he endure?

If you don't know who Charlie Chaplin is except because you were forced to watch his films in film class, I think that says more about you than it does about Chaplin.

As for John Tyler, the main thing about modern America that he'd be appalled about is that we've abolished slavery.

EDIT: just the fact that you can discuss Chaplin in a thread like this and most of us are aware of him and his work badly undermines your arguments. I doubt that any but a very few of us ever took any film classes. I sure know I didn't.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-10, 09:27 PM
If you don't know who Charlie Chaplin is except because you were forced to watch his films in film class, I think that says more about you than it does about Chaplin.

As for John Tyler, the main thing about modern America that he'd be appalled about is that we've abolished slavery.

EDIT: just the fact that you can discuss Chaplin in a thread like this and most of us are aware of him and his work badly undermines your arguments. I doubt that any but a very few of us ever took any film classes. I sure know I didn't.

It says that I don't watch silent movies often. I'm not embarrassed by this. I feel no shame in stating the obvious...the medium that he performed in is dead. People have talked in movies for a long time...and for a good reason: It's better.

When was the last time you spent 2 hours watching a silent movie? How about something that is actually around...like a mime? To a mime...Chaplin is probably God.

Now stop thinking that your generation is the last generation for a second. Imagine a world with holographic surround picture technology. Not first gen...but 5th or 6th gen holographic surround picture tech...now with smell.

Little old Chaplin still has no talking...no color...is flat...and doesn't even smell. He's an ancient postcard of a memory of an era that seems like make believe to the teenagers. He's a 3rd rate exhibit at a film museum that's about half as popular as your local library.

As to John Tyler...you have chosen to remember the entirety of the man because he wasn't vocally against slavery. He also didn't want the states to fight over slavery thinking that it was better to work out the differences without violence...most of his Presidency was work on economic fronts...but no...your recollection of the President of the United States was that he wasn't the white knight for slaves. Newsflash: most people at the time that would vote for him? Felt the same. He was a politician. Be honest...you googled him.

Lord Seth
2012-07-10, 09:48 PM
I was never trying to say Star Trek invented any of the Sci-fi stuff....they did not. Most Sci-fi stuff was thought up way, way before Star Trek(and way, way, way before Star Wars, and way times ten before things like the Matrix and Avatar). But the point of the thread is not 'who had the first geek franchise idea, but what is relevant. So sure, just about every sci-fi show or novel uses 'faster then light travel', but the one most people will know is Warp Speed from Star Trek.What is your rationale for believing that the one "most" people will know is warp speed? I know I knew about hyperspace (and some other kinds of faster-than-light travel) years before I remember hearing the term warp speed. You can't just say "the one most people will know" without providing at least some proof.


My point was more that Star Trek has been seen by more people then most other 'geek franchises' combined. While people don't like to think about the fact, but few adults over the age of 40 will ever watch something like Anime or play a game like Halo or watch a show like Smallville. But Star Trek is know by people from 1 to 99.It's interesting you toss out Smallville considering that even if they don't watch Smallville, you can be pretty sure they'd know who Superman/Clark Kent is, so that kind of does the opposite of backing up your point.


So, Star Trek, did not invent 'accidental time travel stories(I think the record holder would be Mark Twain, right?), but when you ask someone about the idea, they will most likely think of a Star Trek example.Again, what is your rationale for this? You can't just toss this claim out without any backing.

I asked two people what came most quickly to mind in terms of "accidental time travel" and both of them said Back to the Future. Now obviously two people is a very limited sample, but it's still more proof than none at all.

SlyGuyMcFly
2012-07-10, 10:21 PM
I think one thing to look at when figuring out whether or not something is truly enduring is how often the story (or character) is retold. The Illiad is enduring not because everybody has read the Illiad (most people haven't, after all), but because pretty much everyone has read or watched a retelling of that same story. Robin Hood, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, Romeo and Juliet, Don Quijote, Captain Nemo, these are all characters and stories that regularly get dusted off and remade for audiences who have never touched the original material. Their popularity waxes and wanes, but they're always there.

Batman, Superman and a few other comic book icons certainly qualify as enduring by this metric. Star Wars too, I think, will probably live on for a good while. Godzilla and King Kong are two others I'm willing to bet will remain in media in one form or another for a very long time.

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 01:40 AM
It says that I don't watch silent movies often. I'm not embarrassed by this. I feel no shame in stating the obvious...the medium that he performed in is dead. People have talked in movies for a long time...and for a good reason: It's better.

When was the last time you spent 2 hours watching a silent movie? How about something that is actually around...like a mime? To a mime...Chaplin is probably God.

Now stop thinking that your generation is the last generation for a second. Imagine a world with holographic surround picture technology. Not first gen...but 5th or 6th gen holographic surround picture tech...now with smell.

Little old Chaplin still has no talking...no color...is flat...and doesn't even smell. He's an ancient postcard of a memory of an era that seems like make believe to the teenagers. He's a 3rd rate exhibit at a film museum that's about half as popular as your local library.

And yet people still appreciate paintings even though we have pictures. And pictures even though we have moving ones. :smalltongue: There are plenty of silent films still being made, or films in which sound occurs but no one talks. Because mediums as long as they remain available do not die. And it's funny you mention Museums. You act as though being in a museum makes art irrelevant. Yet Picasso and Van Gogh are held up in museums because they are still beautiful, and relevant, and remind us of our cultural history. So unless humanity changes in some bizarre way or an apocalypse occurs that wipes out all records, I don't expect Chaplin to be going anywhere. Because Chaplin is the icon of an entire medium. I don't think I can even name an icon of talking films (iconic pieces, directors, actors, writers sure, but a single icon?)


When was the last time you spent 2 hours watching a silent movie?

The Artist.

Joran
2012-07-11, 02:02 AM
If you don't know who Charlie Chaplin is except because you were forced to watch his films in film class, I think that says more about you than it does about Chaplin.


That we're not film buffs?

I've seen exactly none of Charlie Chaplin films. I'm aware of who he is, but other than that he's the guy with a funny mustache, funny walk, funny hat, hanging from a clock, and apparently making a movie making fun of Hitler, I don't know much about his work.

I've seen homages done to his work (Fry hanging from a clock, Jackie Chan in Shanghai Knights 2), but never anything by him except in a montage of old film.

He's iconic, but I'm not exactly sure of what.

Jan Mattys
2012-07-11, 02:20 AM
Hilariously, I think "Trojan Horse" is the most well-known part of the Iliad. The only reason I know about the rest is because my school system placed a heavy emphasis on Greek mythology. I've read the Odyssey, but not the Iliad and I've read more Sophocles than Homer.


Even more hilariously, the Trojan Horse is not in the Iliad at all. It is only mentioned in passing in the Odyssey, and it is expanded upon in the Aeneid by Virgil (the famous "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - "I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts").

/nitpick

ps: my dad used to tell me stories from the Iliad and the Odyssey when I was a child. I always found that a brilliant idea. I loved everything about them: the characters, the heroics, there's plenty of war, and love, and intrigue, and jealousy, and blood and gods. If handled properly (i.e. adapted for the imagination and age of a 5 years old boy) they are as awesome as stories can get.

dehro
2012-07-11, 02:27 AM
He's iconic, but I'm not exactly sure of what.

isn't that the best kind of iconic? namely, so iconic that you don't even have to know what of, but you still recognize the name, know it's been important in the history of cinema and would probably recognize the profile and the look if you ever saw it by mistake on tv or otherwise..
if I may suggest one of his movies that is still relevant today and that really doesn't need sound to be enjoyed: The Great Dictator.

grimbold
2012-07-11, 07:29 AM
Even more hilariously, the Trojan Horse is not in the Iliad at all. It is only mentioned in passing in the Odyssey, and it is expanded upon in the Aeneid by Virgil (the famous "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - "I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts").

/nitpick


youread cracked too? :smallwink:

Telonius
2012-07-11, 09:30 AM
Interesting that we've moved to discussing how long classic Greek franchises will be relevant. :smallbiggrin:

dehro
2012-07-11, 10:08 AM
there's a difference? :smallamused:

GolemsVoice
2012-07-11, 10:41 AM
Well, the Illiad is both one of the longest D&D campaigns AND a fanfic to boot, so I guess no, not really

Jan Mattys
2012-07-11, 10:54 AM
youread cracked too? :smallwink:

No. Well, yes, but that's not the point :smallbiggrin:

1)I'm from Italy and it's practically due to know the Iliad and the Odyssey in school if you happen to study ancient Greek.
And even more so, the Aeneid is mandatory for those with latin classes :smallbiggrin:

2) As I wrote, my dad told me about Achilles & Co. back when I was around 5 :smallredface:

McStabbington
2012-07-11, 11:17 AM
I'm curious to know how much the Iliad really counts though, because while parts of the stories have entered our lexicon, how we tell the stories is completely different. The character of Hector in our stories is usually second only to Achilles in skill and a man of tremendous honor. In the actual Iliad, he's markedly more honorable than the Achaeans only in that he doesn't rape anyone that I recall, and he gets curbstomped by every Greek hero that he comes across. Odysseus is better than him, Ajax is better than him, Diomedes is definately better than him. So in a very real way, we aren't telling The Iliad at all. We're telling a generic heroic epic that happens to have a bunch of names that come out of the Iliad.

Jan Mattys
2012-07-11, 11:48 AM
I'm curious to know how much the Iliad really counts though, because while parts of the stories have entered our lexicon, how we tell the stories is completely different. The character of Hector in our stories is usually second only to Achilles in skill and a man of tremendous honor. In the actual Iliad, he's markedly more honorable than the Achaeans only in that he doesn't rape anyone that I recall, and he gets curbstomped by every Greek hero that he comes across. Odysseus is better than him, Ajax is better than him, Diomedes is definately better than him. So in a very real way, we aren't telling The Iliad at all. We're telling a generic heroic epic that happens to have a bunch of names that come out of the Iliad.

True.
But I'd say that the same holds true for Romeo & Juliet, or Dante's Inferno, or Milton's Paradise Lost, or the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Not everybody is en expert, and not everybody knows the full story.

But I think the greatness and "immortality" of a piece of art is mainly indicated by how many know it in the first place. Everybody knows the Odyssey in the western world. Everybody knows who Don Quixote is.
The details of his adventures, not so much. But I think that's asking a bit too much.

Das Platyvark
2012-07-11, 12:00 PM
Little old Chaplin still has no talking...no color...is flat...and doesn't even smell. He's an ancient postcard of a memory of an era that seems like make believe to the teenagers. He's a 3rd rate exhibit at a film museum that's about half as popular as your local library.



Let me explain something about Charlie Chaplin: He is certainly outdated, unrealistic, and possibly unappealing to much of today's audience. He's also very, very funny. Much of today's humor is based on being offensive, awkward, or painful to watch, and while I can appreciate that as much as the next man, it still is not on the same level of comedy as people like Chaplin. Everyone can laugh at Chaplin. If you show a silent clip of his to anyone in the world, chances are they will be able to appreciate it, no matter their age or prior experience. Certainly, he's vanishingólong vanished, depending on where you lookóbut that doesn't stop him from being really good.

snoopy13a
2012-07-11, 12:22 PM
Even more hilariously, the Trojan Horse is not in the Iliad at all. It is only mentioned in passing in the Odyssey, and it is expanded upon in the Aeneid by Virgil (the famous "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - "I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts").

/nitpick

ps: my dad used to tell me stories from the Iliad and the Odyssey when I was a child. I always found that a brilliant idea. I loved everything about them: the characters, the heroics, there's plenty of war, and love, and intrigue, and jealousy, and blood and gods. If handled properly (i.e. adapted for the imagination and age of a 5 years old boy) they are as awesome as stories can get.

I believe that there was an epic poem that filled in the gaps between the Illiad and the Odyssey--including the Trojan Horse Story. Likely, that was Virgil's inspriation for the Aeneid. Unfortunately, this was lost so we just have the summary.

Also, I took Greek history and Greek myth classes as electives in college, which were relatively popular. So, there are people who do like to read Greek myths, even when not forced to.

dehro
2012-07-11, 12:40 PM
calling Charlot flat is really showing that you watch movies as a consumer, rather than as an admirer of cinema..and that you don't go or try to go further than considering the special effects and the surface quality of the tape. there can be so much more in a movie..and it's all there in most of Charlot's biggest films. yes, you may have to turn back the clock a little bit.. but there are ..well...enough people in the world who are more than ready to do so to appreciate a good movie that is from before their time, for movies such as those of charlot or..say...Casablanca, to endure in their cult status...adn deservedly so.

Joran
2012-07-11, 12:59 PM
calling Charlot flat is really showing that you watch movies as a consumer, rather than as an admirer of cinema..and that you don't go or try to go further than considering the special effects and the surface quality of the tape. there can be so much more in a movie..and it's all there in most of Charlot's biggest films. yes, you may have to turn back the clock a little bit.. but there are ..well...enough people in the world who are more than ready to do so to appreciate a good movie that is from before their time, for movies such as those of charlot or..say...Casablanca, to endure in their cult status...adn deservedly so.

Right, Charlie Chaplin will always deservedly have a place in the hearts of film aficionados. Thanks to the Internet in particular, more subcultures and fandoms can survive and communicate with each other.

The question I thought this thread was trying to ask was whether something would remain relevant to the general public. For Charlie Chaplin, it's definitely in question, since his material isn't shown much in schools nor are his movies replayed much.

There are basically four ways that someone can learn about something easily without having to make an effort to learn:

1) It's taught by their parents.
2) It's taught by their peers.
3) It's taught by the schools.
4) It's taught by the media.

Charlie Chaplin has mostly dropped out of all four, so it's pretty hard to find widespread knowledge of who he is.

dehro
2012-07-11, 01:51 PM
4) It's taught by the media.


has it?
they do show some of the movies occasionally, here in italy.. also, didn't robert ironman downey jr not make a movie about his life not that many years ago?

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 01:58 PM
Right, Charlie Chaplin will always deservedly have a place in the hearts of film aficionados. Thanks to the Internet in particular, more subcultures and fandoms can survive and communicate with each other.

The question I thought this thread was trying to ask was whether something would remain relevant to the general public. For Charlie Chaplin, it's definitely in question, since his material isn't shown much in schools nor are his movies replayed much.

There are basically four ways that someone can learn about something easily without having to make an effort to learn:

1) It's taught by their parents.
2) It's taught by their peers.
3) It's taught by the schools.
4) It's taught by the media.

Charlie Chaplin has mostly dropped out of all four, so it's pretty hard to find widespread knowledge of who he is.

Not at all. There are constant references to his work, the man himself get's mentioned regularly enough that knowing of him is common knowledge, and youtube clips of his work have millions of views. And it's an odd year that the great dictator speech doesn't make it's rounds on one of my friends Facebook pages, so the taught by peers thing is untrue as well. Additionally I know I asked my parents who he was at some point or another, and I'm sure most film schools (as well as drama schools) take note of him.

Lord Seth
2012-07-11, 02:10 PM
This talk about Charlie Chaplin reminds me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IVE2PuET_o) goofy video I made for a class.

Joran
2012-07-11, 02:46 PM
has it?
they do show some of the movies occasionally, here in italy.. also, didn't robert ironman downey jr not make a movie about his life not that many years ago?

Sad to tell you, but that was 20 years ago...


Not at all. There are constant references to his work, the man himself get's mentioned regularly enough that knowing of him is common knowledge, and youtube clips of his work have millions of views. And it's an odd year that the great dictator speech doesn't make it's rounds on one of my friends Facebook pages, so the taught by peers thing is untrue as well. Additionally I know I asked my parents who he was at some point or another, and I'm sure most film schools (as well as drama schools) take note of him.

I'm 30, so I remember things like the Chaplin movie when reminded, but other than seeing something with him on sale on Pawn Stars, I haven't seen a reference to him since the Futurama episode.

I'm on Facebook and Twitter and haven't seen anything cross that space. Maybe he's just more popular where you are.

dehro
2012-07-11, 04:01 PM
well.. way to make me feel old..and I'm only 33... well..nearly 34.. still.. quite some time after Chaplin retired and mute cinema was thrown out

SlyGuyMcFly
2012-07-11, 04:08 PM
Interesting that we've moved to discussing how long classic Greek franchises will be relevant. :smallbiggrin:

I actually misread the thread title as "How Long Will Classic Greek Franchises be Relevant?". :smallbiggrin:

Xondoure
2012-07-11, 04:08 PM
Sad to tell you, but that was 20 years ago...

I'm 30, so I remember things like the Chaplin movie when reminded, but other than seeing something with him on sale on Pawn Stars, I haven't seen a reference to him since the Futurama episode.

I'm on Facebook and Twitter and haven't seen anything cross that space. Maybe he's just more popular where you are.

I don't know about that. It's not like I know anyone who regularly watches him or anything, but my point is that his name and status as an icon is common knowledge, and because he represents an entire medium that isn't likely to change.

snoopy13a
2012-07-11, 04:15 PM
Re: Charlie Chaplin

Things can go into cycles though. The Great Gatsby is regarded as a classic, yet it went out of print for a time before regaining popularity.

As for Geek Franchises, I'd say The Lord of the Rings has the best chance of remaining relevant as it has been relevant for a long time already. Also, vampires, if vampires as a whole can be considered a "franchise," as Bram Stroker wrote Dracula over a hundred years ago. Star Wars may last some time, it is still somewhat early. Superheroes, such as Superman and Batman have remained popular for some time so it would not be suprising if they stand the test of time. The staying power of a relatively new franchise, like Harry Potter is totally up in the air.

Overall, betting on what will be popular 100 years from now is fairly tough.

dps
2012-07-11, 07:57 PM
It says that I don't watch silent movies often. I'm not embarrassed by this. I feel no shame in stating the obvious...the medium that he performed in is dead. People have talked in movies for a long time...and for a good reason: It's better.

When was the last time you spent 2 hours watching a silent movie? How about something that is actually around...like a mime? To a mime...Chaplin is probably God.

I guess the last silent movie I watch was the 1926 (or 1927?) version of Ben Hur. TBS used to show it and the 50s version with Heston back-to-back on Easter morning (very early in the morning, starting at like 2AM IIRC) and I'd stay up to watch 'em both. The silent version was a better movie IMO. I'm not sure if TBS still does that or not--I have a job now where I've had to work Easter Sunday, so I can't stay up like that anymore. I'm not sure what year was the Easter I watched them.

That's beside the point, anyway. The thing about Chaplin is that people still know who he is and what he did. I knew who he was before I ever saw any of his films (and I think The Kid is the only movie of his that I've actually seen in its entirity). In a personal sense, I'd compare his films to the book Dune--I had heard about Dune and was aware of what it was in a general sense long before I ever got to read it. Why? Because Chaplin and his films, like Frank Herbert's Dune books, still have enough cultural currency that most people are aware of them before actually experiencing them. Actually, I'd say among the general public, Chaplin has more currency than Dune (probably not among geeks). Walk into the local Spencer's Gifts or a similar store--I'll bet you can find something with Chaplin's image on it, but would be hard pressed to find anything Dune related.


Now stop thinking that your generation is the last generation for a second. Imagine a world with holographic surround picture technology. Not first gen...but 5th or 6th gen holographic surround picture tech...now with smell.

I don't think I really want smell in movies.

Actually, they experimented with that years ago, anyway, using scratch-and-sniff cards in theaters. It didn't really catch on.



Little old Chaplin still has no talking...no color...is flat...and doesn't even smell. He's an ancient postcard of a memory of an era that seems like make believe to the teenagers. He's a 3rd rate exhibit at a film museum that's about half as popular as your local library.

As to John Tyler...you have chosen to remember the entirety of the man because he wasn't vocally against slavery. He also didn't want the states to fight over slavery thinking that it was better to work out the differences without violence...most of his Presidency was work on economic fronts...but no...your recollection of the President of the United States was that he wasn't the white knight for slaves. Newsflash: most people at the time that would vote for him? Felt the same. He was a politician. Be honest...you googled him.

I mentioned his support for slavery because it seemed like he's some kind of hero to you, and I wanted to point out the least savory thing about him (from a modern perspective) that I could. I could list a lot of other facts about him if I wanted to go to the trouble, but I don't see the point--especially since, while I didn't google him (or look him up on Wikipedia, etc.), there's no way on the internet that I can prove to you that I didn't.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-11, 10:28 PM
I guess the last silent movie I watch was the 1926 (or 1927?) version of Ben Hur. TBS used to show it and the 50s version with Heston back-to-back on Easter morning (very early in the morning, starting at like 2AM IIRC) and I'd stay up to watch 'em both. The silent version was a better movie IMO. I'm not sure if TBS still does that or not--I have a job now where I've had to work Easter Sunday, so I can't stay up like that anymore. I'm not sure what year was the Easter I watched them.

That's beside the point, anyway. The thing about Chaplin is that people still know who he is and what he did. I knew who he was before I ever saw any of his films (and I think The Kid is the only movie of his that I've actually seen in its entirity). In a personal sense, I'd compare his films to the book Dune--I had heard about Dune and was aware of what it was in a general sense long before I ever got to read it. Why? Because Chaplin and his films, like Frank Herbert's Dune books, still have enough cultural currency that most people are aware of them before actually experiencing them. Actually, I'd say among the general public, Chaplin has more currency than Dune (probably not among geeks). Walk into the local Spencer's Gifts or a similar store--I'll bet you can find something with Chaplin's image on it, but would be hard pressed to find anything Dune related.



I don't think I really want smell in movies.

Actually, they experimented with that years ago, anyway, using scratch-and-sniff cards in theaters. It didn't really catch on.



Scratch n sniff is effort. No scratch and sniff...every smell right down to freshly mown grass...even variances in humidity...full on immersion audio, full 3d holographic surround visual and aroma...at a resolution of billions of pixels per inch. It'd be the difference between mono radio show broadcasts of the 40's and a 1080p 80" led lcd blu ray movie with surround sound. More. TEchnology leaps ahead faster and faster. Maybe you even get to be in the movie. Kind of a kareokee <-- sp? of the 23rd century. That level of immersion will really make b/w, non-talking guy that sticks forks in potatoes to make them seem like dancing feet...well even more lame.

Seriously open your imagination more...imagine horror movies where you actually have to run on some kind of 360 directional floor controller from the attacker. That classic branch that trips the hero/heroine? You better put your money where your mouth is and not trip over it. Or you could choose passive movie mode where you are like an invisible ghost riding along with the heroes...or with the enemy. More control.

Seriously you'd give that up to watch a movie your Great, great great grandfather might have liked? Or are you saying they will make a remake of a remake of a remake...in the new tech...and add sound, smell and interactivity? Wouldn't that kill what Charlie Chaplin was? A comedian from a era where nobody could talk on screen? An era that was shot in 15 fps (from appearances) and shot in the grainiest b/w imaginable?

As to John Tyler...no I don't really care about him at all. He just NEVER gets any press whatsoever...and I thought I'd do his ghost a solid.

Logic
2012-07-11, 10:35 PM
Scratch n sniff is effort. No scratch and sniff...every smell right down to freshly mown grass...even variances in humidity...full on immersion audio, full 3d holographic surround visual and aroma...at a resolution of billions of pixels per inch. It'd be the difference between mono radio show broadcasts of the 40's and a 1080p 80" led lcd blu ray movie with surround sound. More. TEchnology leaps ahead faster and faster. Maybe you even get to be in the movie. Kind of a kareokee <-- sp? of the 23rd century. That level of immersion will really make b/w, non-talking guy that sticks forks in potatoes to make them seem like dancing feet...well even more lame.

Seriously open your imagination more...imagine horror movies where you actually have to run on some kind of 360 directional floor controller from the attacker. That classic branch that trips the hero/heroine? You better put your money where your mouth is and not trip over it. Or you could choose passive movie mode where you are like an invisible ghost riding along with the heroes...or with the enemy. More control.

Seriously you'd give that up to watch a movie your Great, great great grandfather might have liked? Or are you saying they will make a remake of a remake of a remake...in the new tech...and add sound, smell and interactivity? Wouldn't that kill what Charlie Chaplin was? A comedian from a era where nobody could talk on screen? An era that was shot in 15 fps (from appearances) and shot in the grainiest b/w imaginable?

As to John Tyler...no I don't really care about him at all. He just NEVER gets any press whatsoever...and I thought I'd do his ghost a solid.

What you are basically describing ceases to be film, and is instead the Holodeck.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-11, 10:46 PM
What you are basically describing ceases to be film, and is instead the Holodeck.

Well then I think we answered our question about Star Trek ;P

lol.

dps
2012-07-11, 11:18 PM
Scratch n sniff is effort. No scratch and sniff...every smell right down to freshly mown grass...even variances in humidity...full on immersion audio, full 3d holographic surround visual and aroma...at a resolution of billions of pixels per inch. It'd be the difference between mono radio show broadcasts of the 40's and a 1080p 80" led lcd blu ray movie with surround sound. More. TEchnology leaps ahead faster and faster. Maybe you even get to be in the movie. Kind of a kareokee <-- sp? of the 23rd century. That level of immersion will really make b/w, non-talking guy that sticks forks in potatoes to make them seem like dancing feet...well even more lame.

Seriously open your imagination more...imagine horror movies where you actually have to run on some kind of 360 directional floor controller from the attacker. That classic branch that trips the hero/heroine? You better put your money where your mouth is and not trip over it. Or you could choose passive movie mode where you are like an invisible ghost riding along with the heroes...or with the enemy. More control.

Been there, done that. When we were kids, we used our imaginations and ran around outside playing Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, Allies vs Nazis, etc.


Seriously you'd give that up to watch a movie your Great, great great grandfather might have liked? Or are you saying they will make a remake of a remake of a remake...in the new tech...and add sound, smell and interactivity? Wouldn't that kill what Charlie Chaplin was? A comedian from a era where nobody could talk on screen? An era that was shot in 15 fps (from appearances) and shot in the grainiest b/w imaginable?


And yeah, after playing outside, we'd still go inside and watch movies and TV shows. Or even "gasp" read a book. And some of those didn't even have pictures in them, much less sounds or smells.

And let me reiterate--I have very little desire for smells to be added to movies. I don't want to watch a war movie and smell decomposing human flesh, or a new adaptation of say, Romeo and Juliet where we get to smell untreated human waste being dumped into the streets of Verona.

Logic
2012-07-11, 11:31 PM
And let me reiterate--I have very little desire for smells to be added to movies. I don't want to watch a war movie and smell decomposing human flesh, or a new adaptation of say, Romeo and Juliet where we get to smell untreated human waste being dumped into the streets of Verona.
That scenario is possible but unlikely, for the same reason that most casting directors usually only hire people that are ridiculously good looking.

dps
2012-07-11, 11:43 PM
That scenario is possible but unlikely, for the same reason that most casting directors usually only hire people that are ridiculously good looking.

Well, back when they were experimenting with the scratch and sniff cards, that's the kind of smells that they tended to use.

Of course, that fact that a lot of the use of the cards was in early John Waters movies might have something to do with that.

dehro
2012-07-11, 11:44 PM
Seriously you'd give that up to watch a movie your Great, great great grandfather might have liked? Or are you saying they will make a remake of a remake of a remake...in the new tech...and add sound, smell and interactivity? Wouldn't that kill what Charlie Chaplin was? A comedian from a era where nobody could talk on screen? An era that was shot in 15 fps (from appearances) and shot in the grainiest b/w imaginable?

As to John Tyler...no I don't really care about him at all. He just NEVER gets any press whatsoever...and I thought I'd do his ghost a solid.

it seems to me you're confusing videogames with movies..and yes, I would give up my game controller to kick back and watch a movie whilst chugging down a beverage. if I wanted to live a movie like experience in first person, 'd go out and live my life, I'd play a RPG I'd play a videogame, read a book, or I'd go larping,... if I were a kid I'd go play cops and robbers... I used to play gamebooks where I would directly affect the evolution of the plot and be one of the main characters. it's not the same medium nor the same experience.

if a movie is good it has great acting, a great story and moving characters. whether it's black and white, in 3D, smell and environment assisted or just an old homemade tape..is absolutely immaterial. the fact that by the way you talk it seems that you are unable to appreciate a movie that doesn't have the latest in technological evolution and possibly would have the classics remade with new actors and in 3D to appreciate them... it makes me wonder if we're talking about the same things, the same medium and the same kind of experience. I doubt it... and I don't quite know how to explain my point anymore because we're clearly talking different languages and experiences.. so what's the point?
I haven't seen the latest oscar winning silent film yet..I'm told it's a great movie..by your reasoning it should be crap and nobody in this century should appreciate it.. yet apparently people did. I guess I'll give it a try and watch it and you won't. each to their own.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-11, 11:45 PM
Been there, done that. When we were kids, we used our imaginations and ran around outside playing Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians, Allies vs Nazis, etc.



And yeah, after playing outside, we'd still go inside and watch movies and TV shows. Or even "gasp" read a book. And some of those didn't even have pictures in them, much less sounds or smells.

And let me reiterate--I have very little desire for smells to be added to movies. I don't want to watch a war movie and smell decomposing human flesh, or a new adaptation of say, Romeo and Juliet where we get to smell untreated human waste being dumped into the streets of Verona.

First off neither you nor I will be alive. What we did as children is not at all relevant. I see trends...it's part of my job. The trends are largely embracing technology at the expense of the "old ways." I do not see that overall trend decelerating. Twelve year olds today are not you at 12. They are not me at age 12 either. They just aren't. 12 year olds in 50 years will really not be you or me at that age. People used to play with wooden hoops n sticks...that died. What we are trying to predict is what will die next? You need that info to properly even form a guesstimate of what current or currently fading icons will still be present in the minds of the masses.

I imagine...imagination will become a virtual reality. You will learn how to interface with a let's call it a super computer...in such a way so as to make Cowboys and Indians form all around you. Sci-fi movies/shows have hinted at this for decades...and it makes perfect sense. People always want deeper immersion. Graphics and colors to be more lifelike. Sounds to be more realistic. 3D is not going to vanish. It's just taking a bit to get the media up to the current tech. Movies are of course leading the charge. Seems every other movie out today has a 3d version...doesn't it? Why would you imagine that is the pinnacle? I'd be downright disappointed in us as a species if it was. I'd hope for something three times better than even what I'm describing.

As to smell-o-vision? You can turn certain smells on or off much like you tweak settings on a video game.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-11, 11:54 PM
it seems to me you're confusing videogames with movies..and yes, I would give up my game controller to kick back and watch a movie whilst chugging down a beverage. if I wanted to live a movie like experience in first person, 'd go out and live my life, I'd play a RPG I'd play a videogame, read a book, or I'd go larping,... if I were a kid I'd go play cops and robbers... I used to play gamebooks where I would directly affect the evolution of the plot and be one of the main characters. it's not the same medium nor the same experience.

if a movie is good it has great acting, a great story and moving characters. whether it's black and white, in 3D, smell and environment assisted or just an old homemade tape..is absolutely immaterial. the fact that by the way you talk it seems that you are unable to appreciate a movie that doesn't have the latest in technological evolution and possibly would have the classics remade with new actors and in 3D to appreciate them... it makes me wonder if we're talking about the same things, the same medium and the same kind of experience. I doubt it... and I don't quite know how to explain my point anymore because we're clearly talking different languages and experiences.. so what's the point?
I haven't seen the latest oscar winning silent film yet..I'm told it's a great movie..by your reasoning it should be crap and nobody in this century should appreciate it.. yet apparently people did. I guess I'll give it a try and watch it and you won't. each to their own.

http://www.akagenc.com

I graduated in 99 with a degree in graphic arts. I currently work with Chicago ad agencies in primarily a conceptual creative role. I am a museum junkie. I have studied art extensively in many mediums. I am an avid wood carver. I have carved a guitar (on my website btw) that is rivaled only by my 08 goldtop les paul. I have played guitar for 20 years and even taught at a studio for a few years after high school due to being able to play fast Yngwie type stuff. It was a high end store at that.

BUT...I am not normal. The normal person has 1/100th as much appreciation for art. My job desires me to think like a normal person does as much as possible. I'm telling you...I just do not see much appreciation for old anything from normal people.*


* unless they are themselves...old.

Logic
2012-07-11, 11:54 PM
it seems to me you're confusing videogames with movies..and yes, I would give up my game controller to kick back and watch a movie whilst chugging down a beverage. if I wanted to live a movie like experience in first person, 'd go out and live my life, I'd play a RPG I'd play a videogame, read a book, or I'd go larping,... if I were a kid I'd go play cops and robbers... I used to play gamebooks where I would directly affect the evolution of the plot and be one of the main characters. it's not the same medium nor the same experience.

if a movie is good it has great acting, a great story and moving characters. whether it's black and white, in 3D, smell and environment assisted or just an old homemade tape..is absolutely immaterial. the fact that by the way you talk it seems that you are unable to appreciate a movie that doesn't have the latest in technological evolution and possibly would have the classics remade with new actors and in 3D to appreciate them... it makes me wonder if we're talking about the same things, the same medium and the same kind of experience. I doubt it... and I don't quite know how to explain my point anymore because we're clearly talking different languages and experiences.. so what's the point?
I haven't seen the latest oscar winning silent film yet..I'm told it's a great movie..by your reasoning it should be crap and nobody in this century should appreciate it.. yet apparently people did. I guess I'll give it a try and watch it and you won't. each to their own.

I personally find 3D to largely be a gimmick. One that most audiences are latching onto, but still a gimmick. It remains to be seen if it sticks around, because most films are not enhanced by its presence.

As for The Artist, I personally think it was the Academy of Motion Pictures throwing a bone at the novel idea of a film returning to the roots of film. (Full disclosure, I have not seen it.) The same thing happened with the movie Chicago, but they were throwing a bone at the long dead "musical" genre.

dehro
2012-07-12, 12:04 AM
BUT...I am not normal. The normal person has 1/100th as much appreciation for art. My job desires me to think like a normal person does as much as possible. I'm telling you...I just do not see much appreciation for old anything from normal people.*


* unless they are themselves...old.

it seems to me that what you're describing to be a "normal person" should be contextualized.. I don't mean to be snooty or disparaging .. but the whole world doesn't quite think in the same terms the general movie going populace in the US do.. there are plenty of countries where the movie industry looks for different things and where the general populace looks for things other than the latest special effect in a movie... in those countries the most modern developments of technology live side by side with less "advanced" movies which are appreciated equally..sometimes more. one could argue that what makes the difference is the amount of money thrown at the production..but that is not nearly as often the case as we like to believe.

dps
2012-07-12, 12:05 AM
First off neither you nor I will be alive. What we did as children is not at all relevant. I see trends...it's part of my job. The trends are largely embracing technology at the expense of the "old ways." I do not see that overall trend decelerating. Twelve year olds today are not you at 12. They are not me at age 12 either. They just aren't. 12 year olds in 50 years will really not be you or me at that age. People used to play with wooden hoops n sticks...that died. What we are trying to predict is what will die next? You need that info to properly even form a guesstimate of what current or currently fading icons will still be present in the minds of the masses.

I imagine...imagination will become a virtual reality. You will learn how to interface with a let's call it a super computer...in such a way so as to make Cowboys and Indians form all around you. Sci-fi movies/shows have hinted at this for decades...and it makes perfect sense. People always want deeper immersion. Graphics and colors to be more lifelike. Sounds to be more realistic. 3D is not going to vanish. It's just taking a bit to get the media up to the current tech. Movies are of course leading the charge. Seems every other movie out today has a 3d version...doesn't it? Why would you imagine that is the pinnacle? I'd be downright disappointed in us as a species if it was. I'd hope for something three times better than even what I'm describing.

As to smell-o-vision? You can turn certain smells on or off much like you tweak settings on a video game.

12 year olds today aren't like me at 12, no. But even now, give a kid a stick, or a ball, or a cardboard box, and they'll play with it. Sure, they'll play with a video game, too, usually play with it in preference to those other things, but sometimes they'll put the game controller down and go back to the cardboard box. And even more often, they'll put all of it aside to watch Spongebob or Scooby-Doo.

Sci-fy said for decades that we'd have nuclear-powered flying cars, and it seemed to make perfect sense, but it ain't happening. I'll grant that VR seems more likely than the flying cars ever did, but it's not a given (and heck, I wouldn't rule out people using VR technology to recreate going to a 1920's style movie palace and watching a Chaplin film there).

As for 3-D movies, I certainly don't consider them a pinnacle.

Lord Seth
2012-07-12, 12:08 AM
Seems every other movie out today has a 3d version...doesn't it?Nope. Not at all.

That's not sarcasm, just to be clear. There don't seem to really be that many 3D movies.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-12, 12:10 AM
it seems to me that what you're describing to be a "normal person" should be contextualized.. I don't mean to be snooty or disparaging .. but the whole world doesn't quite think in the same terms the general movie going populace in the US do.. there are plenty of countries where the movie industry looks for different things and where the general populace looks for things other than the latest special effect in a movie... in those countries the most modern developments of technology live side by side with less "advanced" movies which are appreciated equally..sometimes more. one could argue that what makes the difference is the amount of money thrown at the production..but that is not nearly as often the case as we like to believe.

Knowing what every country's general populace thinks is about a gazillion miles ahead of my capabilities. I am fortunate enough to have a decent grasp of my own.

I did not want to put my info up here. It makes me seem like I seek separation from the rest...I do not. You guys aren't "normal" either. There is a non-ironic My Little Pony Thread here. We discuss in great detail a fictional comic book entity vs a fictional novel entity. And so on and so forth.

CapnRedBeard
2012-07-12, 12:15 AM
Nope. Not at all.

That's not sarcasm, just to be clear. There don't seem to really be that many 3D movies.

Half the movies in American theaters appear to have 3D versions.

Brave, Spiderman, Abraham Lincoln, Ice Age, Madagascar, Journey 2, Katie Perry, Avengers, Prometheus...these are the 3d movies CURRENTLY playing.

dps
2012-07-12, 12:27 AM
http://www.akagenc.com

I graduated in 99 with a degree in graphic arts. I currently work with Chicago ad agencies in primarily a conceptual creative role. I am a museum junkie. I have studied art extensively in many mediums. I am an avid wood carver. I have carved a guitar (on my website btw) that is rivaled only by my 08 goldtop les paul. I have played guitar for 20 years and even taught at a studio for a few years after high school due to being able to play fast Yngwie type stuff. It was a high end store at that.

BUT...I am not normal. The normal person has 1/100th as much appreciation for art. My job desires me to think like a normal person does as much as possible. I'm telling you...I just do not see much appreciation for old anything from normal people.*


* unless they are themselves...old.

Do you have kids of your own, or spend much time around kids? I don't have any, but until a couple of months ago, I had lived next door to my sister-in-law and her 3 little kids, and they love plenty of older stuff. I mentioned Spongebob and Scooby-Doo in my previous post. Those are 2 of their favorites Ok, Spongebob is still relatively new, but while there are newer versions of Scooby-Doo, some of the videos they watch a lot are of episodes that are over 40 years old. And one of their favorite movies is The Wizard of Oz, which is almost 75 years old. Not sure if they've seen any Chaplin, or if they'd appreciate it right now if they did, but I'd bet they'd love Laurel and Hardy, even the Fat One and the Skinny One's really old silent shorts.

No, they don't have any appreciation of something old, not for the sake of it being old. But they also don't have any appreciation yet of whether or not something's old. They don't know that the Three Stooges are all dead and haven't made any new films since well before their mother was born, and they don't care. But they'll still laugh when the Stooges hit someone in the face with a pie, and don't give a damn that it's in black and white instead of color. To them, it's just as new as the latest episode of Spongebob.

Now, that doesn't prove that their kids 20 years from now, or their grandchildren 40 or 50 years from now, will be watching Scooby-Doo, Where Are You, or old Stooges shorts, but it sure doesn't support your position, either.

dehro
2012-07-12, 02:04 AM
@redbeard I didn't think you should know everything that there is under the sun.. nobody could.. I merely wanted to point out that there are other perceptions of the world and it's trends other than your own..other trends entirely in fact.. and that they are equally valid.

on a side note.. isn't the Percy Jackson character steeped in greek mythology and such? sounds to me like your umpteenth retelling of those myths and characters (not to mention Loki Vs Thor).. so..yes, people move on from old things...but then..not quite.
I bet that at least a few kids got to read up on good old Homer after they watched those movies.

In a different context, it very much reminds me of the first time I went to Hong Kong..I found what was a pretty new record over there..something as of yet unheard of in Italy..namely the Fugees and their hit debut album... I though I was being all edgy and stuff when I bought it and brought it to Italy. I kinda was..after all that record was still unavailable in Italy.
I said as much to my mum when I went to visit her.. she listened to the main hit single for a couple of minutes, then went to the back room..retrieved an old and dusty LP and put that on.

turns out "Killing me softly" was a cover..brought to prominence by Roberta Flack back in the early 70's
that was me told.
Apparently some things never get old.