What is the cutoff for you for when films can be considered classics?

[DrNewGod]

How we perceive classic is probably changing in ways we don't yet fully understand. Until relatively recently, you had to go out of our way to find some of these films; AMC and TCM were founded to make them more accessible. Part of The Wizard of Oz's and It's A Wonderful Life's mystique was that they were seasonal events on television for more than one generation.

Today, even awful stuff is instantly accessible (give or take a subscription fee).

[Captain Craig]

Anything 20 years or older. So anything before 1990...

Um, math.
You said one thing with a qualifier and typed another with a different qualifier.

At minimum you are saying anything older than at least 2003, not 1990, if you're serious about your at least 20yrs old starting point.
Which places something like Will Ferrell's Elf in play AND agrees with another term brought up, Modern Classic.

The generational sliding timescale as mentioned is also accurate as ones Modern Classic slides into accepted Old & Classic.
Casablanca and The Godfather both right there together but generations apart soon to be joined by Lord of the Rings a few decades from now.

[krazijoe]

Um, math.
You said one thing with a qualifier and typed another with a different qualifier.

At minimum you are saying anything older than at least 2003, not 1990, if you're serious about your at least 20yrs old starting point.
Which places something like Will Ferrell's Elf in play AND agrees with another term brought up, Modern Classic.

The generational sliding timescale as mentioned is also accurate as ones Modern Classic slides into accepted Old & Classic.
Casablanca and The Godfather both right there together but generations apart soon to be joined by Lord of the Rings a few decades from now.

Sorry, GenX Joke...

[Zero Hunter]

I think it depends on if people are still bringing it up and talking about it years latter. Take two examples. I think most people would consider the Lord of the Rings trilogy classics. People still talk about it and love those movies. On the other hand you have a film like Avatar. Big news for a while and massive box office but you heard no one talking about at all until the sequel was coming out and then the talk died down just as fast. Films can make all the money in the world and be huge hits and still be forgotten a year latter. Just look at the Transformers and Fast and Furious movies. None of those I think are considered classics

[Mister Mets]

How we perceive classic is probably changing in ways we don't yet fully understand. Until relatively recently, you had to go out of our way to find some of these films; AMC and TCM were founded to make them more accessible. Part of The Wizard of Oz's and It's A Wonderful Life's mystique was that they were seasonal events on television for more than one generation.

Today, even awful stuff is instantly accessible (give or take a subscription fee).

Interesting point on how access to films changes things.

In the past, major films did have more theatrical revivals so you could easily have actors competing on the big screen with their biggest role from 20 years earlier.

Anything 20 years or older. So anything before 1990...

It could vary from person to person.

Some people have a very good sense of when something came out.

For others, it may be more about what a film is associated with.

For me, a big part of longevity will be the extent to which I associate a film with a particular era.

And there are major shifts.

In the early 70s, there was New Hollywood. In the early 80s, there was the blockbuster era. The 90s bought the independent boom and early digital tech. A big shift in the 2000s was more complicated narratives in genre fare when home media was ubiquitous, as well as potentially blander narratives to appeal to international audiences. The last ten years have seen more emphasis on diverse voices, and the blurred lines about what counts as a movie with streaming (Somehow a film that is straight to streaming is not the equivalent of a film that was made for TV.)

One question would be about film series that came out in quick succession. It does seem to me that the moment the first Lord of the Rings is considered a classic, the same applies to the rest of the trilogy. When the first Harry Potter film is considered a classic, Prisoner of Azkaban, the best of the series, would also be considered one.

Yes but it's over used IMHO.

Oppenheimer and Godzilla Minus One heralded the return of practical and economic effects.

Barbie showed us movies for women by women can make bank.

And about a dozen other movies last year called themselves instant classics but not those three.

That's an interesting point that films that have an obvious impact get considered classics faster.

[SturdyMike89]

For me personally, I would say that it takes about a generation or 25 years for a film or television show to reach true "classic" status. Of course, to be fair, that could be because 1999 was such a beast for movies and television, it makes the cutoff point easy.

[Scott Taylor]

To me, the term "classic" has so many meanings. Its marketing for the streaming channels, who tend to list anything that is old as a classic, whether or not it sucks. In that sense it connotes age, purely. And for me, I'll lump a bunch of films together as classics if they come from a certain era and are good representatives of that era. Examples of different eras would be the silent era, the early talkies, the World War II movies, the 1960s, early Scifi, mid Scifi and then the CGI era.

In a way its like sports. You have running backs like Jim Brown who are in the Hall of Fame and from a certain era where the rules were different. Then you have guys like Thurman Thomas who were from a much more running back centric era that had different rules. Both classic RBs but in their own way completely unique to their era.

And then there are classics for a certain creator. Certainly Jaws is a Spielberg classic. Star Wars is THE Lucas classic. Hidden Fortress is a Kurosawa classic, along with Ran. I like looking at it that way, too, because it recognizes that creators are unique and the term 'classic' is not a one-size-fits-all.

[kcekada]

Anything 20 years or older. So anything before 1990...

I agree. A person's age shouldn't matter -- the film's age should. Although going by that rule -- it would be anything before 2004.

[WebLurker]

I don't think there's any real cutoff point for when something becomes a "classic," since it's case-by-case. Some movies take some time to build their audience, while others cement themselves right away.

That said, I do think we need some level of hindsight to get an idea of what movies have staying power and which don't.

[BeastieRunner]

That's an interesting point that films that have an obvious impact get considered classics faster.

Into The Spider-Verse and Toy Story brought in new animation techniques and I would argue became instant classics.

Same argument could be made for performances, too, IMHO.