In article <XnsA55C9069D921Dtrastrastras@69.16.179.27>, mjello
<non.compos@ment.is> wrote:
> Now that we're more than 10 years removed from the creation of abdec and
> from the rationale for creating it, the definition of classic may
> warrant re-examination.
>
> The 2004 definition, "films that were produced in the 1970s and 1980s,
> which would be reviewed and referred to by such authors as Jim Holiday,
> Robert Rimmer, Patrick Riley and others," relies on the opinions of
> people who watched the movies on tape or in theaters and as a rule prior
> to 1986. That's more than 30 years ago.
>
> Many people inside and outside the industry think it imploded with, and
> never recovered from, the advent of the VCR. Specifically, the VCR made
> it so easy and so cheap to make movies that little or no movie-making
> skills or investment were required.
>
> If that's so, and there seems to be little question that it is, where do
> we look for post-1985 opinions about what deserves to be called a
> classic after the so-called Golden Age? Maybe "The AVN Guide to the 500
> Greatest Adult Films of All Time" (2005)? Or something else?
>
> Perhaps we just roll our own and nominate individual movies that have
> stood the test of time for particular reasons (e.g., "I think 'Latex'
> belongs here because...").
>
> Or do we just let it stay the way it is?
>
> What do you think?
Two quotes sum up my thoughts:
De gustibus non est disputandum that is "in matters of taste, there
can be no disputes"
doc
|
|