Discussion:
Classic films
(too old to reply)
Spains Harden
2019-12-19 17:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Classic films:

"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".

The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
occam
2019-12-19 18:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'. 'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
Lewis
2019-12-19 19:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
According to whom is Nightmare on Elm Street rubbish? People who have
never seen it?
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
Yes.
Post by occam
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'. 'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
I've never heard anyone refer to Back to the Future as rubbish, and only
old-people who dismiss all horror movies and never watch them have
referred to NMoES as rubbish in my presence.
--
In the velvet darkness of the blackest night Burning bright There's a
guiding star
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-19 20:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'.
A friend distinguished between flicks, movies, and films. I don't
know her opinions on the ones Harrison mentioned, but she might
have called /Nightmare on Elm Street/ a flick, /Back to the
Future/ a movie, and /Nashville/ a film.

I've referred to "a classic of its kind" and "Klassic with a capital
K"--partly based on that friend's "artsy with a capital R".
Post by occam
'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
--
Jerry Friedman
Spains Harden
2019-12-19 20:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'.
A friend distinguished between flicks, movies, and films. I don't
know her opinions on the ones Harrison mentioned, but she might
have called /Nightmare on Elm Street/ a flick, /Back to the
Future/ a movie, and /Nashville/ a film.
I've referred to "a classic of its kind" and "Klassic with a capital
K"--partly based on that friend's "artsy with a capital R".
Post by occam
'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
"Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.

What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that (when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?

I personally don't think "Killer Tomatoes" are ever going to invade
Earth, and there is little PTD can do to persuade me contrariarwise.
RH Draney
2019-12-19 22:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Jerry Friedman
A friend distinguished between flicks, movies, and films. I don't
know her opinions on the ones Harrison mentioned, but she might
have called /Nightmare on Elm Street/ a flick, /Back to the
Future/ a movie, and /Nashville/ a film.
I've referred to "a classic of its kind" and "Klassic with a capital
K"--partly based on that friend's "artsy with a capital R".
Post by occam
'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
"Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that (when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
Ooh, "Moon Zero-Two"!...r
occam
2019-12-20 07:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
     "Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
        What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that
(when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
Ooh, "Moon Zero-Two"!...r
It is not on this list of bottom-of-the-barrel films.

https://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom

I am tempted to check it out.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-20 08:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
     "Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
        What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that
(when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
Ooh, "Moon Zero-Two"!...r
It is not on this list of bottom-of-the-barrel films.
https://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom
I haven't seen any of those. I have, however, seen Pier 5 Havana, which
surely deserves a place in such a list. It seemed to consist entirely
of men running away from others who were shooting at them, or being
punched on the face. However, I saw it dubbed in Turkish in a cinema in
Istanbul, so I may have missed some subtlties of the dialogue.
Post by occam
I am tempted to check it out.
--
athel
Spains Harden
2019-12-20 08:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
     "Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
        What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that
(when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
Ooh, "Moon Zero-Two"!...r
It is not on this list of bottom-of-the-barrel films.
https://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom
I haven't seen any of those. I have, however, seen Pier 5 Havana, which
surely deserves a place in such a list. It seemed to consist entirely
of men running away from others who were shooting at them, or being
punched on the face. However, I saw it dubbed in Turkish in a cinema in
Istanbul, so I may have missed some subtlties of the dialogue.
Midway between "subtleties" and "subtitles", that is a useful new word.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-19 22:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'.
A friend distinguished between flicks, movies, and films. I don't
know her opinions on the ones Harrison mentioned, but she might
have called /Nightmare on Elm Street/ a flick, /Back to the
Future/ a movie, and /Nashville/ a film.
I've referred to "a classic of its kind" and "Klassic with a capital
K"--partly based on that friend's "artsy with a capital R".
Post by occam
'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
"Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
Hardly.
Post by Spains Harden
What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that (when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
I personally don't think "Killer Tomatoes" are ever going to invade
Earth, and there is little PTD can do to persuade me contrariarwise.
What? When have I ever mentioned them?

A popular double bill a the Cornell film society was "Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes" and "Bambi vs. Godzilla." Two masterpieces of animation.

Then they would play the latest art film.
RH Draney
2019-12-20 04:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A popular double bill a the Cornell film society was "Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes" and "Bambi vs. Godzilla." Two masterpieces of animation.
Then they would play the latest art film.
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not animation, and "Bambi Meets
Godzilla" (not "vs.") has a running time of a minute and a half....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-20 06:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-20 06:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"
Sorry. I don't think I pressed Send, but my computer thought I did.
Anyway,I have nothing of interest to say about killer tomatoes.
--
athel
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-20 08:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A popular double bill a the Cornell film society was "Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes" and "Bambi vs. Godzilla." Two masterpieces of animation.
Then they would play the latest art film.
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not animation, and "Bambi Meets
Godzilla" (not "vs.") has a running time of a minute and a half....r
I'm guessing it doesn't end well for Bambi.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-20 09:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A popular double bill a the Cornell film society was "Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes" and "Bambi vs. Godzilla." Two masterpieces of animation.
Then they would play the latest art film.
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not animation, and "Bambi Meets
Godzilla" (not "vs.") has a running time of a minute and a half....r
I'm guessing it doesn't end well for Bambi.
I read today that the Soviet spy Andrei Bezrukov went by the name
Donald Heathfield. Relative of yours?
--
athel
occam
2019-12-20 06:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'.
A friend distinguished between flicks, movies, and films. I don't
know her opinions on the ones Harrison mentioned, but she might
have called /Nightmare on Elm Street/ a flick, /Back to the
Future/ a movie, and /Nashville/ a film.
I've referred to "a classic of its kind" and "Klassic with a capital
K"--partly based on that friend's "artsy with a capital R".
Post by occam
'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
"Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
You would be ashamed to acknowledge it as rubbish, or ashamed because
you still secretly love watching it?
Post by Spains Harden
What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that (when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
I personally don't think "Killer Tomatoes" are ever going to invade
Earth, and there is little PTD can do to persuade me contrariarwise.
Some might say PTD is living proof that killer tomatoes /have/ already
invaded Earth.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-20 07:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'.
A friend distinguished between flicks, movies, and films. I don't
know her opinions on the ones Harrison mentioned, but she might
have called /Nightmare on Elm Street/ a flick, /Back to the
Future/ a movie, and /Nashville/ a film.
I've referred to "a classic of its kind" and "Klassic with a capital
K"--partly based on that friend's "artsy with a capital R".
Post by occam
'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
One might describe a "guilty pleasure" film that way.
"Guilty pleasure" is a great concept. Something you loved in the
old days, but which you would be ashamed to acknowledge now.
You would be ashamed to acknowledge it as rubbish, or ashamed because
you still secretly love watching it?
Post by Spains Harden
What about the films you thought were brilliant then and that (when
you look back at them now) were actually rubbish?
I personally don't think "Killer Tomatoes" are ever going to invade
Earth, and there is little PTD can do to persuade me contrariarwise.
Some might say PTD is living proof that killer tomatoes /have/ already
invaded Earth.
Maybe watching it too many times at the Cornell Film Club made him the
way he is.
--
athel
Ken Blake
2019-12-19 20:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'. 'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
To me "classic" implies "great." I don't think "Back to the Future" was
either classic or rubbish. It was fun to have seen it, but I wouldn't
want it in my collection of DVDs/tapes of what I call classic
films--films to want to see over and over.

I've never seen "Nightmare on Elm Street," so I have no real opinion of
it. But the reason I never saw it was I wouldn't have expected to like it.
--
Ken
Tony Cooper
2019-12-19 23:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'. 'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
To me "classic" implies "great."
I think a classic film is any film that is mentionable and most people
hearing that mention know of the film. I've never seen "Airplane" but
it's a classic in the sense that its so recognizable and lines are
quoted from it so frequently. Whether or not it was "great" I don't
know.
Post by Ken Blake
I don't think "Back to the Future" was
either classic or rubbish. It was fun to have seen it, but I wouldn't
want it in my collection of DVDs/tapes of what I call classic
films--films to want to see over and over.
I've never seen "Nightmare on Elm Street," so I have no real opinion of
it. But the reason I never saw it was I wouldn't have expected to like it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Spains Harden
2019-12-20 07:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ken Blake
Post by occam
Post by Spains Harden
"Nightmare on Elm Street".
"Back to the Future".
The first one is rubbish and the second one is "classic".
Being "rubbish" doesn't declassify the first one from being classic,
does it?
There are other categories between 'rubbish' and 'classic'. 'Cult' comes
to mind. Cult films can be rubbish but still cult, as long as they have
a few perennial followers. 'Back to the future' is classic or rubbish,
depending who you ask. DeLorean lovers think it a 'classic'.
Time-traveler buffs think it rubbish. But 'no' to your question - a film
cannot be classic and rubbish at the same time to the same person,
schizophrenia willing.
To me "classic" implies "great."
I think a classic film is any film that is mentionable and most people
hearing that mention know of the film. I've never seen "Airplane" but
it's a classic in the sense that its so recognizable and lines are
quoted from it so frequently. Whether or not it was "great" I don't
know.
It *was* "great". Made in the era of the famous air-disaster films, it has
outlived all of them and (as you suggest) for English Usage purposes, has
left us bucketfuls of jokes and quotations. A taster here:


Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ken Blake
I don't think "Back to the Future" was
either classic or rubbish. It was fun to have seen it, but I wouldn't
want it in my collection of DVDs/tapes of what I call classic
films--films to want to see over and over.
I've never seen "Nightmare on Elm Street," so I have no real opinion of
it. But the reason I never saw it was I wouldn't have expected to like it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Loading...