|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 6, 2016 12:33:34 GMT -5
For my personal point of view, classic means 1960s and older. But then most of you here are young punks to me and comics should be 12 cents except for 25 cent annuals. But that's a personal view and you should be glad you don't share that with me...yet (except possibly Prince Hal or Rob Allen) That's why I think a rolling definition of "classic" is necessary because we're all different ages. And as the years go by it will get murkier. Like my memory Now get out of my cave And maybe farrar. See you at the Senior Center, ish. (aka Fifty Years Ago thread) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 13:38:26 GMT -5
For my personal point of view, classic means 1960s and older. But then most of you here are young punks to me and comics should be 12 cents except for 25 cent annuals. But that's a personal view and you should be glad you don't share that with me...yet (except possibly Prince Hal or Rob Allen) That's why I think a rolling definition of "classic" is necessary because we're all different ages. And as the years go by it will get murkier. Like my memory Now get out of my cave And maybe farrar. See you at the Senior Center, ish. (aka Fifty Years Ago thread) Maybe we understand his fascination with pudding now-easier to eat when you reach the toothless stage again   -M |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Sept 6, 2016 14:17:37 GMT -5
With Infinite Crisis and Civil War now reaching the "Classic" age of ten years this will prove to be convenient for quite a few posters. I've seen a lot of people say that they haven't read Marvel and/ or DC since these two events.
For me, if it's before Crisis on Infinite Earths, it's classic. And no, I don't give consideration to comics from elsewhere in that definition.
and now a real classic...
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,210 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 6, 2016 14:54:30 GMT -5
I voted 10 years old. That seems like the right amount of time and that designation always worked well back at the old forum on CBR. Of course, in truth, most of the comics discussed here in the main "classics" forum are gonna be way older than that, but having anything over 10 years able to qualify as "classic" feels about right to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 6, 2016 14:59:31 GMT -5
And maybe farrar. See you at the Senior Center, ish. (aka Fifty Years Ago thread) Maybe we understand his fascination with pudding now-easier to eat when you reach the toothless stage again -M If I get to be lactose-intolerant, life will not be worth living |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 15:38:36 GMT -5
I voted 10 years old. That seems like the right amount of time and that designation always worked well back at the old forum on CBR. Of course, in truth, most of the comics discussed here in the main "classics" forum are gonna be way older than that, but having anything over 10 years able to qualify as "classic" feels about right to me. The old CBR forum standard was anything more than 2 years old was fodder for the classics board. That was set by CBR not the posters there. That felt a little too recent for mist of us here, which is where he original debate started as to how to define it for our new home. -M |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,210
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 6, 2016 17:07:55 GMT -5
I voted 10 years old. That seems like the right amount of time and that designation always worked well back at the old forum on CBR. Of course, in truth, most of the comics discussed here in the main "classics" forum are gonna be way older than that, but having anything over 10 years able to qualify as "classic" feels about right to me. The old CBR forum standard was anything more than 2 years old was fodder for the classics board. That was set by CBR not the posters there. That felt a little too recent for mist of us here, which is where he original debate started as to how to define it for our new home. -M Ah, OK. 10 years was the cut off point for the Classic Comics Christmas event though, which was the cornerstone of the whole community over there and I certainly don't remember many discussions about 2 year old comics. 10 years feels about right and is a workable cut off. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 17:46:32 GMT -5
It's been an interesting discussion here and I for one, feels that 10 years is a tad to recent to me and it's has to be at least 20 years or more to be classic. I'm in my mid 50's and I feel that 10 years is too soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Sept 6, 2016 18:04:28 GMT -5
My personal classics are 1917-1994. But that's just me. I think ten years is enough time to start being objective. it seems to me that most comic sites are about what's new. So this is the site to draw up an armchair, put another log on the fire, adjust one's slippers, and take a long pause before asking, was that comic really any good?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Sept 6, 2016 18:52:04 GMT -5
I always associate classic in content more than age. Like y'all are classy class act posters no matter if you're 60 or 20 years old. Just like Age of Apocalypse isn't any less of a classic, to me, at 20 yearsold than Starlin's Warlock which is older than me. Or pretty close to.
Edit: Just like comics are an amalgam of words and pictures, "classic" is an amalgam of content and age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Sept 7, 2016 3:09:52 GMT -5
I don't think a thread falls into disuse for two years because someone couldn't find it in the classics section two years before it was eligible to be in the classics section. [...] a topic that hasn't seen activity in two years is going to get buried in whatever section its placed in anyway. It very well might; take me, for example, I never check the "Modern Comics Discussion" board. That's because of a lack of enough subdivisions, I always thought the current structure, was consistent with a desire to have everything together, so you don't have to go to a specific place to look for something in particular. Things getting buried, is the main culprit of such an approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 7, 2016 4:50:10 GMT -5
I guess for book keeping purposes we've decided 10 years is the number. I wonder how many comics since 2000 are actual great books worthy of the name "classic" like the movie Casablanca or Gone with the Wind are considered classic ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 7, 2016 5:41:47 GMT -5
I guess for book keeping purposes we've decided 10 years is the number. I wonder how many comics since 2000 are actual great books worthy of the name "classic" like the movie Casablanca or Gone with the Wind are considered classic ? As I said before, there are plenty of god-awful golden age books too. Age of comics and quality of comics are separate issues . The age of a comic can't be argued. Quality is subjective-an individuals' taste. Trying to combine the two cannot be definitive. Unless you want to change the forum to GOCF-Good Old Comics Forum |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 7, 2016 5:52:18 GMT -5
I get that but , I guess I'm asking the question about quality in the last 16 years. I don't mean runs but arcs or single issues that are timeless the way ROTDK or Watchmen are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 7, 2016 7:08:34 GMT -5
Blacksad, Brubaker&Phillips various works, various works by Darwyn Cooke are the first to come to mind.
|
|
