|
|
Post by Jasoomian on May 1, 2014 21:03:03 GMT -5
Per shaxper, we must ask:
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on May 1, 2014 22:03:57 GMT -5
Per shaxper, we must ask: No one is making you, ya know... But since you did ask, my personal opinion is that five years is a good dividing line. It's enough time to gain hindsight perspective once the hype, immediacy, and initial reactions have passed. That being said, for most purposes, this really won't matter on the new forum. It's not like there's another forum to move a conversation to if the comic in question is too new. We have the "new comics" thread for stuff coming out right now, but, beyond that, this is a forum that caters to classic comic lovers but tolerates discussion of the not so old as well. I just don't see the point in splitting hairs. However, determining a new definition for "classic" will inform things like the Classic Comics Christmas (though Cei-U! may feel strongly about sticking to the old criteria, and that's fine) and any future lists we create akin to the Top 100 Sagas thread from March. Did I talk out both sides of my mouth enough for all of you, there? |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 1, 2014 22:08:56 GMT -5
My own personal definition for collecting purposes is any comic that was printed on newsprint. So that would basically be anything before mid 90s or so. But I guess for the purposes of this board five years seems reasonable. I always thought the two year definition on the CBR forums was a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 22:15:10 GMT -5
TCM showing newer and newer movies has made me loathe the idea of "classic" designation being on a sliding scale (even if it is logical), and a non-comics related milestone seems odd. So, I'd say '91 or Silver Age make the most sense, and since Bronze Age is definitely "classic" to me, I'm going with '91.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 1, 2014 22:15:54 GMT -5
About that old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on May 1, 2014 22:20:10 GMT -5
"Newsprint" would have been an excellent poll option.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on May 1, 2014 22:23:30 GMT -5
"Newsprint" would have been an excellent poll option. The problem with "Newsprint" is that it's a static point in time. I understand not wanting to be wishy-washy in our definition, but the "Modern Age" inevitably moves as years progress and the comic industry changes. Shouldn't the demarcation between modern and classic therefore move with it? |
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on May 1, 2014 22:26:58 GMT -5
Ten years is good number.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 1, 2014 22:29:41 GMT -5
"Newsprint" would have been an excellent poll option. The problem with "Newsprint" is that it's a static point in time. I understand not wanting to be wishy-washy in our definition, but the "Modern Age" inevitably moves as years progress and the comic industry changes. Shouldn't the demarcation between modern and classic therefore move with it? I agree... if the definition remains a fixed point in time, then newer material could never be deemed classic, no matter how old it gets or how well it represents the medium. Although, I should point out that the poll presupposes that "classic" is merely defined by age, which I don't believe is quite accurate going by the standard definition of the word. Works can be considered classic because they are considered exemplary for the medium independent of age, no? In any case, newsprint was more of a personal definition for me, based on my own associations with what I consider classic comics... cheap newsprint, coloring that wasn't done on a computer, Hostess fruit pie ads, a big "Marvel Comics Group" bar across the top of the page... |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on May 1, 2014 22:30:04 GMT -5
Ten years is good number. I can easily see that. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 1, 2014 22:33:25 GMT -5
This really seems like a "problem" that's not a problem.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on May 1, 2014 22:34:48 GMT -5
This really seems like a "problem" that's not a problem. They're just comics, Slam  (I was waiting for you to post something like this) |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 1, 2014 22:37:16 GMT -5
Funnybooks is just funnybooks.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 1, 2014 22:39:02 GMT -5
I have it at ten years, both in terms of voting in this poll and in terms of how I think about older comics. There are a lot of comics from the mid-late 90's and early 00's that I consider absolute classics. They don't really feel or read like modern books either to me - some of them may be a little more decompressed than Bronze Age books or whatever, but they are still before the massive decompression and writing for the trade syndrome that has turned monthly comics into a less than satisfying reading experience.
And for me personally, Avengers #500 and the beginning of Avengers Disassembed is now 10 years ago - it came out with a cover date of September, 2004 and began the complete Bendisization of the entire MU. That's a watershed moment. Everything that has happened in the MU since - both in terms of the stories, the handling of characters and the way the stories are told - can be traced back to the total shitshow that was Avengers #500.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 23:16:18 GMT -5
"Newsprint" would have been an excellent poll option. The problem with "Newsprint" is that it's a static point in time. I understand not wanting to be wishy-washy in our definition, but the "Modern Age" inevitably moves as years progress and the comic industry changes. Shouldn't the demarcation between modern and classic therefore move with it? It's not really a static point in time at all when you factor in independent comics, some of which were using high quality papers decades before Marvel and DC. |
|
